Hansard, 2010-10-18

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2010) To (2010) Mr Teo Ser Luck 18 Sep 20 Sep 28 Sep 30 Sep 12 Oct 14 Oct Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan 19 Sep 25 Sep Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong 25 Sep 01 Oct 16 Oct 26 Oct Mr Laurence Wee Yoke Thong 28 Sep 03 Oct Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 29 Sep 02 Oct Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 30 Sep 06 Oct 07 Oct 07 Oct 25 Oct 04 Nov Mr Zainudin Nordin 30 Sep 01 Oct 16 Oct 17 Oct 21 Oct 23 Oct 24 Oct 29 Oct Mr Lee Yi Shyan 01 Oct 04 Oct 06 Oct 11 Oct 18 Oct 22 Oct 24 Oct 27 Oct Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 01 Oct 05 Oct 18 Oct 18 Oct 26 Oct 29 Oct Mr Wee Siew Kim 01 Oct 01 Oct 05 Oct 06 Oct 11 Oct 11 Oct 13 Oct 15 Oct 19 Oct 20 Oct 24 Oct 30 Oct Column: 1305 Mr Wee Siew Kim 03 Nov 05 Nov 09 Nov 09 Nov 16 Nov 17 Nov 19 Nov 21 Nov 23 Nov 26 Nov 28 Nov 30 Nov Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed 01 Oct 03 Oct 17 Oct 03 Nov 05 Nov 07 Nov Mr Lee Hsien Loong 02 Oct 06 Oct 27 Oct 30 Oct Dr Lim Wee Kiak 02 Oct 08 Oct 29 Oct 03 Nov RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew 04 Oct 07 Oct Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M 04 Oct 08 Oct 17 Oct 20 Oct 23 Oct 31 Oct 01 Nov 05 Nov Mr S Iswaran 04 Oct 07 Oct Mr Chan Soo Sen 05 Oct 07 Oct 18 Oct 23 Oct Mr Baey Yam Keng 07 Oct 10 Oct Mr Heng Chee How 07 Oct 08 Oct 15 Oct 17 Oct 20 Oct 21 Oct Mr K Shanmugam 07 Oct 22 Oct Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 07 Oct 13 Oct Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien 08 Oct 10 Oct Dr Teo Ho Pin 09 Oct 11 Oct 14 Oct 20 Oct Dr Vivian Balakrishnan 09 Oct 11 Oct Mr Inderjit Singh 10 Oct 14 Oct 03 Nov 09 Nov 14 Nov 20 Nov 25 Nov 10 Dec Mr Khaw Boon Wan 10 Oct 13 Oct 19 Oct 22 Oct Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat 10 Oct 13 Oct Mr Teo Chee Hean 10 Oct 14 Oct Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 12 Oct 16 Oct 19 Oct 21 Oct 28 Oct 29 Oct Mr Alvin Yeo 12 Oct 15 Oct 19 Oct 21 Oct Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 12 Oct 17 Oct Column: 1306 Mr Charles Chong 13 Oct 16 Oct 19 Oct 21 Oct Mr Michael Palmer 14 Oct 17 Oct Mr Abdullah Tarmugi 15 Oct 17 Oct Mr Lim Swee Say 15 Oct 17 Oct Mr Mah Bow Tan 15 Oct 17 Oct 26 Oct 30 Oct Mr Hawazi Daipi 16 Oct 25 Oct Mr Yeo Guat Kwang 16 Oct 18 Oct 27 Oct 30 Oct Dr Ng Eng Hen 17 Oct 22 Oct Mr Chiam See Tong 18 Oct 22 Oct Mr Lee Kuan Yew 18 Oct 18 Oct Mr Teo Siong Seng 18 Oct 18 Oct Mr Zaqy Mohamad 18 Oct 20 Oct Mr Calvin Cheng 19 Oct 28 Oct Mr Lim Hng Kiang 19 Oct 21 Oct 27 Oct 01 Nov Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman 22 Oct 26 Oct 31 Oct 04 Nov Ms Ellen Lee 24 Oct 30 Oct Mrs Josephine Teo 24 Oct 30 Oct 19 Nov 20 Nov Mr Lim Boon Heng 24 Oct 28 Oct Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 26 Oct 30 Oct Mr Sin Boon Ann 26 Oct 04 Nov Mr Seng Han Thong 30 Oct 31 Oct Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan 31 Oct 04 Nov Mdm Cynthia Phua 10 Dec 23 Dec Dr Ong Seh Hong 13 Dec 25 Dec

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

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

22nd September,2010 (1) Property Tax (Amendment) Bill 1st October,2010 (1) National Productivity Fund Bill (2) International Child Abduction Bill (3) Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill (4) Estate Agents Bill

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order. On behalf of the House, I would like to place on record the demise of Dr Balaji Sadasivan, former Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Member for Ang Mo Kio GRC, on 27th September 2010.

Dr Balaji was elected as a Member of Parliament for Ang Mo Kio GRC on 25th October 2001 and served the constituency for nearly nine years. During this period, he held office first as Minister of State in the Ministries of the Environment, Health and Transport from 2001 to 2004. In August 2004, he was appointed Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts and for Health. In May 2006, he relinquished his portfolio for Health and became the Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs along with his concurrent appointment to the Ministry of Information, Communications

and the Arts. From April 2008 till his death, he was the Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs.

Dr Balaji was an unassuming Member and colleague. He will be remembered for his humility and sincerity to serve the House and the people of Singapore. Despite his failing health in the last two years, he continued to discharge his duties in the best interest of the nation and was steadfast in the service of his fellow men.

On behalf of this House, I express with great sadness and a deep sense of loss at the passing of Dr Balaji Sadasivan and extend our deepest sympathies and condolences to the family of the late Member.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to pay tribute to Dr Balaji Sadasivan who passed away three weeks ago.

Dr Balaji distinguished himself in many ways – as a Member of Parliament, representing the people of Cheng San Division in Ang Mo Kio GRC, an office-holder appointed to many different portfolios, a dedicated and accomplished neurosurgeon before he entered public office and a learned intellectual and caring family man.

Dr Balaji, the Member of Parliament, served his constituents well, right till the end. I asked Mr Inderjit Singh, his fellow GRC MP in Ang Mo Kio who worked closely with him and knew him well. Despite his illness, he made it a point to attend most grassroots functions.

At the last major event – Cheng San's 30th anniversary celebrations in August – he was there for the whole event and dinner. Those who were there knew he was in pain but he never let that dampen the mood of the celebrations.

In April this year, he called his fellow GRC MPs for help to cover his Meet-the-People Session (MPS) as he was starting a new round of chemotherapy. After half an hour, to everyone's surprise, he called to say he was coming to conduct the MPS himself. This, after a difficult chemotherapy session.

The last time most of us saw Dr Balaji was when he came to Parliament on 15th September 2010. He was here to see the Prime Minister to discuss plans to cover Cheng San. He explained that he had little time left and worried about how his residents would be supported in his absence.

Even at this late hour of his life, he still put his residents before himself. On that day, Dr Balaji also celebrated Minister Mentor's birthday together with other Members. Little did many of us realise that that would be the last time he would set foot in Parliament.

Dr Balaji, the office-holder, served many Ministries in his nine years in Government – Health, Environment, Transport, Information, Communications and the Arts and, finally, Foreign Affairs. He applied his mind and dedicated himself diligently to all his responsibilities.

He was an invaluable member of the SARS task force which tackled the crisis when we were hit by SARS in 2003. He helped to explain to the international community how Singapore was dealing with the disease, especially some of the difficult decisions we had to make.

I recall being with him in Switzerland to address the Saint Gallen Symposium on how Singapore responded to the threat of SARS. Recently, I received a note from the Saint Gallen Foundation for International Studies, conveying their condolences. Allow me to read an extract

from this note: "We still have strong memories of Dr Balaji's most vibrant lecture 'Successfully fighting SARS'. He was a highly distinguished person whom we greatly admired." He had obviously made an impact on the international faculty and audience.

Dr Balaji also played a major role in efforts to prevent and control the spread of HIV in Singapore. It was a cause he was deeply passionate about. He took bold steps, many in the face of criticism. He engaged the gay community to win their support for the things he wanted to do. He was convinced that he was doing the right thing and, patiently and calmly, did it.

Finally, Dr Balaji, the man. Highly intelligent, witty, selfless, humble, caring, courageous. These words and more have been used by those who knew him best. I recall every time I talked to him, the conversation was never dull. His thoughts ranged far and wide and took you to many new fields of knowledge. Recently, we were in Beijing together for an official meeting. The car journeys were long as the traffic was heavy but they were never boring. We discussed everything from contemporary Chinese politics to ancient Chinese history, from Chinese opera to modern Chinese architecture. He did most of the talking.

Dr Balaji was a good and loyal friend to those who knew him. They in turn cherished his friendship. His medical classmates have set up a fund – the Balaji Sadasivan Fund for medical undergraduates – to honour his memory. They have also set up a blog in remembrance of him.

We know from the touching eulogy of his son Dharma what a loving family man he was, his sense of humour, his strength in the face of adversity, his courage in facing up to his illness, and his care and concern for his family in preparing them for life without him.

Sir, we have lost a dear friend and colleague, and an outstanding Singaporean. On behalf of this House, I wish to express our deepest condolences to the family of the late Dr Balaji Sadasivan – to his wife Swan Hoo, his son Dharma and his daughter Anita. I wish to acknowledge the presence of his family and relatives in the House today.

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

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

Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether Mas Selamat Kastari has revealed how he escaped from the Whitley Road Detention Centre (WRDC); (b) if so, whether his account is consistent with the findings of the Committee of Inquiry; and (c) if he has also revealed how he managed to leave Singapore and make his way to Malaysia.

Sir, on 21st April 2008, I had given this House a detailed account of the findings of the Committee of Inquiry (COI) that was convened to establish, based on the facts available then, how Mas Selamat Kastari escaped from the Whitley Road Detention Centre (WRDC) on 27th February 2008.

Mas Selamat is now back in our custody. He was handed over to ISD by the Malaysian Special Task Force (STF) on 24th September 2010. He was then arrested by ISD under the ISA and an

Order of Detention for two years has just been issued against him.

There are two primary issues which investigators in this case are pursuing at present. A team of investigators from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) has been assigned to question Mas Selamat on his escape from the WRDC. Another team of investigators and analysts from ISD is investigating the case from a security or counter-terrorism angle. This includes both determining the terrorist attack plans that had surfaced in investigations by the Malaysian security agencies and identifying the residual elements of the JI network, whether Singaporeans or others, with whom Mas Selamat had made contact and sought to regroup and collaborate to develop such plans. The CID and ISD teams work in parallel but keep each other apprised of key disclosures or discoveries.

Although the investigations into Mas Selamat's escape from WRDC in 2008 are continuing, to date what Mas Selamat has disclosed has not been very much more than what he has revealed to the Malaysian authorities. This version of his escape from the WRDC is essentially consistent with the findings of the COI which have been reported and made public.

Mas Selamat revealed to investigators that he had observed that there was renovation work going on in the WRDC. There was indeed significant renovation work going on at the WRDC at the time. The renovation work was done in order to enhance old facilities to accommodate and manage the detainees. Mas Selamat also revealed that when he was brought to use a toilet in a renovated and different block from the regular one used in the past for family visits, he noticed that the window to one of the toilet cubicles was not grilled. Members can see the photo displayed on the screens [Photo A1* displayed]. On his second visit to the

toilet, he managed to open the window of this toilet cubicle by turning the lever even though the handle had been sawn off, as Members can see on the screens [Photo A2* displayed].

Noting this critical security weakness, he then actively planned to escape. He began a routine to close the door of that toilet cubicle and turn on the tap in the cubicle on his next visits. He was trying to get the guards used to this routine during his family visits. He also started hanging his pants over the top of the cubicle door, so as to deceive the guards into thinking that if his pants were still hanging over the top of the door, he was still inside the cubicle.

He planned his escape during his family visit on 27th February 2008. On that day, when he was brought out of his cell to a changing room to change into civilian clothes in preparation for his weekly family visit, he did not take off his WRDC uniform but instead put on another two layers of civilian clothing over the uniform – he first put on a dark green baju kurung and dark blue pants, and then a light green baju kurung and grey pants. He claimed that he had put on three layers of clothing.

Mas Selamat was then brought by two Gurkha guards to the Family Visitation Block. He was first taken to the toilet before seeing his family. He went into the specific toilet cubicle which he knew had the unsecured ventilation window. One guard went into the toilet with him and waited outside the cubicle. Another guard waited outside the toilet. Mas Selamat then went through his routine of closing the cubicle door, hanging a pair of pants over the top of the cubicle door, and turning on the tap. He then pushed open the unsecured window and climbed out of the toilet cubicle window, as in the photo displayed on the screens [Photo A3*

displayed]. He said that he threw two packets of toilet rolls that were in the cubicle out of the window to cushion his landing.

When he was standing outside the toilet, he observed that the fences to the left and in front of him were too high to scale. He made his way to the right hand side and came to a slope where two fences met. Members can see the photo [Photo A4* displayed]. One of the fences had a roof next to it; he climbed the fence and threw one of the packets of toilet rolls onto the roof, before climbing onto the roof. He made his way to the edge of the roof and threw the bag of toilet rolls onto the grass on the external side of the fence to cushion his landing, then jumped off the roof over the fence and landed on the grass outside of the WRDC. Having escaped from the WRDC, he headed into the forested area. Mas Selamat said that while he was in the forested area, he took off the light green baju kurung and threw it on the ground, as the guards had seen him in that garb and he did not want to be recognised or detected.

These disclosures were generally consistent with the findings of the COI which enquired into how Mas Selamat escaped from the WRDC. As to how he eventually escaped from Singapore to Malaysia, this is something which the current investigations are looking into. In this connection, Mas Selamat has not given a completely reliable account of how he evaded detection while a manhunt was launched to find him and how he made his way to Malaysia. As this is the part of his escape which is still under active investigation, I am not able to share any details at this stage other than to say that the investigators are not closing any option. The CID and ISD investigators are not taking anything for granted in this case. They will keep an open mind and persist.

Sir, when Mas Selamat escaped, ISD officers never gave up and did not rest until they managed to track him down to where he was hiding in Malaysia. Likewise, I am confident that our officers will continue to persevere in what has been a difficult and challenging investigation. Underestimating Mas Selamat and the resilience of JI sympathisers and elements would be most dangerous folly. Indeed, it is people like Mas Selamat who underscore how persistently real the threat of terrorism continues to be for Singapore and Singaporeans.

*Cols. 1435-1436; 1437-1438; 1439-1440; 1441-1442.

Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister for confirming that the manner which he escaped from WRDC is largely consistent with the COI findings. I would like to ask supplementary questions on MHA's assessment of his threat level to Singapore presently. Now that Mas Selamat has been detained, is the terrorism threat lower and is Singapore safer for it? Secondly, is there a greater threat, for example, a revenge attack posed by his network outside of WRDC? Thirdly, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is MHA's present assessment of Mas Selamat's threat level to Singapore and how does this compare with MHA's assessment before his escape from WRDC?

I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for asking those questions. In our assessment, the threat posed by Mas Selamat remains consistent following the operation against the JI in 2001. Mas Selamat was determined to retaliate and plan attacks against Singapore even while he was on the run. Having been trained in Afghanistan, he has the operational competencies to stage a terrorist attack, if given time and opportunity. His determination to do so remains unchanged. This is why Mas Selamat has to be held in preventive detention.

Is the threat lower now and is Singapore safer now? Sir, holding Mas Selamat in preventive detention means that there is just one threat less. But there are others out there in the region, in Indonesia, for example. The Indonesian security forces have, over the years, killed major terrorist figures, like Azahari Husin, Noordin Mohammad Top and Dulmatin. But this has not put a stop to terrorism-related activities there. The ongoing counter-terrorism operations in Indonesia bear this out.

Sir, Singapore's security cannot be divorced from the security situation in our region and beyond. We are an open economy and society. The reality is that the current terrorist threat has proven to be a resilient one. Terrorist elements have adapted and evolved their organisation and network even as the security actions by the States are stepped up against them. So the threat remains real and significant.

What about the threat of his network? Sir, with Mas Selamat in custody, as I said earlier, there is just one person less in the leadership element circulating in the network. But Singapore has been and will continue to remain a target in the eyes of the terrorist network. The continuing discoveries of new plots and the disruptions by the security forces in the region tell us that the terrorist network is very much alive and resilient. The threats posed by the network therefore remains real and significant.

Mr Speaker, I would like some clarifications from the Minister on the details of his escape. While I accept the investigations are not complete, have the authorities determined whether Mas Selamat was aided by others in his escape? If so, how was he able to communicate with them while in detention?

Sir, as I said earlier, the investigators are keeping an open mind and they will pursue all angles. But the investigations are indeed still ongoing and not complete. As such, I am not able to comment further on whether he was aided in any way by anyone in this escape. Even during the investigation into his escape in 2008, the investigators did not rule out the possibility that Mas Selamat could have received help from inside or outside the WRDC. But at this stage, it is premature for us to jump to conclusions.

Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether Mas Selamat is likely to escape again. Secondly, what has ISD learnt from the last episode of this escape?

Mr Low asked whether Mas Selamat is likely to escape again. As I said, after the COI had completed its findings and which I reported in this House, that the COI made many recommendations, including enhancing the security of WRDC. Over the last two years, this is what the WRDC has done. The ISD has taken a great interest and definitely has looked into the various possibilities that any detainee, not just Mas Selamat, could escape from the WRDC.

Besides the tighter procedural measures that were immediately implemented after the escape, significant physical security works were also carried out to address the key infrastructural weaknesses that directly contributed to the escape. So the weaknesses that I have just told Members about and which the COI found in 2008 – all those weaknesses have been resolved and they have been tightened. The protection of WRDC has also been strengthened. Both the security procedures as well as infrastructural measures have been audited by the Prisons Department. That was what the COI had also

recommended after the findings in March 2008. There are also annual inspections by the Prisons Department. A revised regime for detainees has also been implemented. The detainees are now classified into three different risk categories, depending on the level of risk that they pose. Based on the categories of risk set by ISD, detainees are given different privileges and security assessment.

Mas Selamat is now placed on the highest category, which is the red category. Being a red category detainee, his movement will be closely observed and he is heavily shackled whenever he needs to be moved out of the cell. For him, we have a larger Gurkha guard escort team to ensure that whatever acts that he plans to have will not succeed. At the same time, as recommended by the COI, ISD has also planned to have a new purpose-built detention centre in the Changi Prison. The planning is now ongoing and we hope to complete the centre in four to five years' time.

Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister for giving us the assessment of the threat level of Mas Selamat. I would like to ask supplementary questions in relation to his escape to Malaysia. How was Mas Selamat able to leave Singapore when security had been tightened at the border controls, such as the Customs? If investigations are still ongoing, would the Deputy Prime Minister disclose to the House how he managed to get across to Malaysia when investigations are in fact concluded?

Sir, I will answer the second question first. Yes, we intend to share our findings when the investigations can conclusively determine how he had escaped to Malaysia and if it does not comprise our operational security. At this stage, I am not able to say when the investigation will complete. The duration will be determined by several

factors, including how cooperative Mas Selamat is and the veracity of his disclosures.

Sir, as to the question of how Mas Selamat could have escaped to Malaysia, this is a matter still being investigated by the ISD as well as by CID. But we know that after his escape, we have deployed all available resources to check the various parts of Singapore, including our coast lines as well as the exit and entry points into Singapore. We have also received help from the SAF. But as we know, Singapore is an island. It is not possible to seal off every entry or exit point, whether these are ICA checkpoints or our shores. As we have seen from the examples of illegal immigrants who have managed to enter or leave Singapore and whom we have detected and arrested, it is quite possible that people could also leave or enter Singapore undetected.

Just within the last one week, the Police and ICA have managed to detect quite a few cases of illegal immigrants trying to come into Singapore. There were two cases of illegal immigrants trying to swim into Singapore. They are separate cases. There was also a case of two illegal immigrants hiding in a car boot, trying to leave Singapore.

There was also a case of a speed boat coming in from Malaysia and trying to offload a few illegal immigrants. Fortunately, in these few cases, the Police Coast Guard (PCG) as well ICA detected them and arrested the illegal immigrants. But, as I said, there are so many other possibilities that they could come in and there could also be many possibilities that we could have missed and they have entered or left Singapore.

2. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) if he will give an update on the Memorandum of

Understanding between Singapore and Malaysia; (b) what plans are being considered for the historic Tanjong Pagar site and the land along the railway tracks; (c) what are the plans to develop a rapid transit link between Singapore and southern Malaysia to be operational by 2018; and (d) what joint iconic project is being considered and whether such a project will accelerate the rate of investments and joint ventures between Singapore and Iskandar Malaysia.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first clarify that the two countries did not sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). A Joint Statement was issued after the Prime Ministers of Singapore and Malaysia met at their Retreat on 24th May this year. The Joint Statement reflected their agreement on, among other things, the relocation of the Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB) railway station from Tanjong Pagar to the Woodlands Train Checkpoint by 1st July 2011 pursuant to the Points of Agreement on Malayan Railway Lands in Singapore, or what we call the POA, signed in 1990, and subject to agreement on the land swap issue.

Prime Minister Lee visited Malaysia on 22nd June 2010 to discuss the land swap issue with Prime Minister Najib and conveyed Singapore's offer on the land swap. Following the same meeting, Prime Minister Lee sent a revised land swap offer to Prime Minister Najib on 28th June 2010. Prime Minister Najib accepted the offer on 17th September 2010 and Prime Minister Lee replied on 19th September 2010 confirming his agreement. The Prime Ministers met again in Singapore on 20th September 2010 as a follow-up to their earlier meetings, and have agreed on the following:

The Singapore Government shall vest four land parcels in Marina South and two land parcels in Ophir-Rochor in a joint

venture company called M-S Private Limited, for joint development when KTMB vacates the Tanjong Pagar Railway Station (TPRS) and relocates the railway station to Woodlands. KTMB will vacate Tanjong Pagar by 1st July next year. M-S Pte Ltd will be 60% held by Khazanah Nasional Berhad of Malaysia and 40% held by Temasek Holdings (Pte) Ltd of Singapore. The Marina South and Ophir-Rochor land parcels are in lieu of the three parcels of land in Tanjong Pagar, Kranji and Woodlands mentioned in the POA and three additional pieces of land in Bukit Timah previously offered by Singapore.

The land swap between the Marina South and Ophir-Rochor land parcels, on the one hand, and the three POA land parcels and three Bukit Timah land parcels, on the other hand, is done on an equivalent value basis using the value of the three POA land parcels and three Bukit Timah land parcels based on their maximum development potential. Development charges therefore have to be paid on the three POA land parcels and the three Bukit Timah land parcels to realise their value based on maximum development potential for the purposes of the land swap. Malaysia agrees that development charges are payable for the three Bukit Timah land parcels but holds a different view from Singapore relating to the development charges payable on the three POA land parcels. Both Leaders have agreed to settle this issue amicably through arbitration under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. They have further agreed to accept the arbitration award as final and binding. Both Leaders also agreed that the arbitration will proceed on its own track, and shall not affect the implementation of the POA and the other bilateral initiatives agreed in the Joint Statement of 24th May 2010, which shall continue to be implemented.

The details of the relocation of the railway station and other implementation issues are being sorted out by the Joint Implementation Team co-chaired by the Secretary General of Malaysia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Secretary of Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Joint Implementation Team shall conclude their discussion on the details of the implementation of the 24th May Joint Statement by 31st December this year, by the end of this year.

After KTMB relocates its station to Woodlands Train Checkpoint by 1st July next year, the railway station building in Tanjong Pagar will be conserved and will serve as the centrepiece for any future development on the site. It was also agreed that the old Bukit Timah railway station building at Blackmore Drive can be conserved as well. The rest of the land along the railway tracks will be incorporated into the future development plans of the surrounding areas to meet Singapore's development needs.

The two Prime Ministers also committed to the joint development of a rapid transit system (RTS) link between Singapore and Tanjung Puteri in Johor Bahru, targeted to be completed by 2018. As this will be a major infrastructure project, both sides are currently discussing the details of implementing the RTS link. This includes looking at factors such as connectivity with both the Singapore and Johor Bahru public transport networks.

In addition, to improve the existing connectivity between Malaysia and Singapore, the two governments agreed to lower toll charges for the Second Link by 30% on both sides and, in fact, the revised toll rates have been implemented with effect from 1st August this year.

On the Iskandar Malaysia (IM) iconic project, the two Prime Ministers agreed that Khazanah and Temasek will form a

50-50 joint venture company to undertake the development of an iconic wellness township project, which would involve the participation of the private sector of both countries. Both sides are supportive of the "live-work-play" wellness township concept proposed by our Joint Ministerial Committee for Iskandar Malaysia. The proposed iconic project will offer holistic wellness services and facilities in a sizeable development.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as Members are aware, the IM project is an ambitious initiative that Malaysia has embarked on to catalyse further economic growth. Companies from Japan, South Korea, China, India, and the Middle East have shown interest in the IM. With the proximity of the IM, Singapore companies are also considering opportunities there. From May 2006 to May 2009, Singapore companies invested some RM 2.64 billion in Iskandar Malaysia. The joint development of the iconic project will send a strong signal of the Singapore and Malaysian governments' continuing commitment to strengthen bilateral political and economic ties, especially in Iskandar Malaysia.

I want to thank the Minister for his explanation. I am also glad to hear that the two iconic structures will be conserved. I have a couple of supplementary questions to ask the Minister.

I would like to ask the Minister, in light of these developments, whether he could give an assessment of the state of relations between Singapore and Malaysia. The second supplementary question is the rapid transit system link: how far has the discussion proceeded and has it been agreed whether it will be under the water or on land? And the third question I would like to ask is the issue of development charges: has this already been referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ)? These are the three questions I would like to ask. And I would like to compliment

the Prime Minister and also the Prime Minister of Malaysia for their very brave and forward-looking way in trying to iron out these issues. Now that we have reached this stage, this would pave the way for other issues to be resolved and ironed out as well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may answer the second and third questions first. The RTS Link will be a major infrastructural project linking the two urban transport systems together. I think both sides are doing detailed studies and they have to meet to discuss what best would serve our mutual needs in a most cost-effective way. Whether it should be above water or below water, I think all these details have to be discussed and would require proper engineering studies and proper cost analysis.

As for the arbitration on development charges, both sides are now assembling their legal teams, and they have not yet met for this purpose, but the Joint Implementation Team will have to work all this out, and begin the process of resolving these matters.

Mdm Halimah is right that with this agreement, bilateral relations are now on a different plane. A chapter which has been kept open for 20 years has finally been closed, enabling us now to look at the future and prospects for future cooperation in a globalised world in a much more positive and constructive way. So I would say this is a milestone in the history of bilateral relations between the two countries. I would say relations now are excellent, and there should be prospects for greater future cooperation, both political and economic.

3. Mr Michael Palmer asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence

what is the outcome of the investigation on the emergency landing of an RSAF Apache AH-64 on the vacant field along Woodlands Avenue 12; (b) what measures will the RSAF take to prevent such incidents from occurring again; (c) given the proximity to civilian populated areas which aircraft must fly in Singapore, what procedures does the RSAF have in place when an emergency such as this arises; and (d) if the RSAF will review its policy on aircraft flying in close proximity to housing estates to reduce the risk to public safety.

4. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence what safeguards are in place to protect civilians from safety risks arising from SAF air training accidents.

5. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (a) what is the root cause of the recent emergency landing by an RSAF helicopter in an open field in Woodlands; (b) what is the standard procedure for pilots who have to make an emergency landing; (c) what is the guideline on public safety when a pilot has to make an emergency landing; and (d) whether it is safe to conduct flight training in Singapore which is densely populated.

6. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence whether the Ministry can make public the list of emergency landing sites for military aircraft and whether notices can be placed at these sites to help users stay alert should an emergency arise.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 together?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, MINDEF has carried out investigations with the aircraft and engine manufacturers into the cause of the loss of power in both engines which led to the incident of the Apache landing in the open field. Following the incident, both engines from the aircraft were sent to the manufacturers for a full tear-down and inspection. The manufacturers have identified a defective component which is present in both engines of the aircraft, which led to the loss of power and shut-down of both engines during flight.

The defective component is called the Anti-Ice Start Bleed Valve (AISBV). A corroded valve would lead to malfunctioning of the guide vanes that channel air to the aircraft engine. The disruption of airflow to the engine will lead to the loss of engine power. The Anti-Ice Start Bleed Valves in both engines were found internally corroded when opened up by the manufacturer. The defect was caused by corrosion in the valve which occurred over time. The investigation then looked into why the AISBV was corroded and why the corrosion went undetected. We looked into whether there was a manufacturing defect or a maintenance error.

Sir, the valves used in the RSAF Apache fleet are the same as those used by other Apache operators around the world. We have no evidence that there were manufacturing defects in these valves. We have also ascertained that the RSAF maintenance crews adhered to the required maintenance procedures specified by the manufacturer for the aircraft, including the AISBV. Prior to this, there were no reported incidents of the same nature. Currently, there are also no stipulated maintenance checks that would allow such internal corrosion in the AISBV to be detected by the maintainers. The maintenance procedure does not call for

the RSAF to open up the AISBV for inspection. This can only be done by the manufacturer. The aircraft operator, in our case the RSAF, needs to replace the AISBV only after a fault code appears in the aircraft computer during flight, or when running the engine on the ground for tests. The nature of the malfunction arising from the corrosion was not detected by the aircraft computer and therefore no fault code was generated. We are now studying, together with the aircraft manufacturer, the maintenance procedures to see whether the maintenance procedures mandated by the manufacturer need to be modified so that corrosion which occurs inside this valve can be prevented, or can be detected and corrected should it occur.

To ensure that our helicopters are fitted only with valves that operate properly, the RSAF will replace all existing valves with new ones, or valves that are re-certified by the manufacturer, and test the engines thoroughly before we clear each helicopter for flying. Having also reviewed and established that the RSAF’s maintenance, flight and training safety procedures are sound, the Apache and the SeaHawk helicopters will progressively resume flying this week.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the RSAF maintains the highest standards of maintenance and flight safety. Let me now turn from the cause of the power loss in the engines to how the RSAF's pilots are trained to handle emergencies. Training in emergencies is a key part of the training of all our pilots. In the event of an emergency, where possible, the aircraft will be flown back to the nearest airbase immediately. If this is not feasible, the pilots will attempt a safe landing at the nearest open space.

In doing so, the key priority is always to avoid populated areas. Safety to the populace has the highest priority. This is what the two pilots did in this incident. When they determined that they were not able to land at an airbase, they

considered their options, and found an open space away from buildings and populated areas, verified and confirmed that the field was clear of people, and then executed an emergency landing.

Any open unused plots of land or open fields are potential emergency landing sites for helicopters. Depending on the flight route of the helicopter, various open spaces are identified and briefed as part of pre-flight procedures for that flight. This is carried out for all RSAF helicopter flights. Hence, it is not possible to identify any specific open spaces as designated emergency landing sites as emergency landing sites depend on the flight routes being taken and where the emergency occurs. Our pilots are trained to ensure the safety of the public before making a decision to land in any of these open spaces, and they will forego such a landing even at risk to themselves if there is a danger to the population.

Let me now turn to the issue of flight training in Singapore and the safety of our population. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is densely populated and has limited airspace. The RSAF also has to share the tight airspace with civilian aircraft. Given these constraints, in addition to local training, the RSAF conducts training in overseas training areas as well as on simulators. The RSAF strikes an appropriate balance amongst these three forms of training. Local training is essential to maintain the proficiency of our Singapore-based aircrew, and to ensure that all our pilots are familiar with the local operating environment. Overseas training is more costly but it helps address the airspace constraints our pilots face at home. Simulator training is a useful and effective component of pilot training to improve piloting and operational skills. It allows pilots of varying experience to be trained on aircraft handling under different operational scenarios and this includes, in particular, training all our pilots on

handling the various types of aircraft emergencies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the safety of our populace is a top priority of MINDEF and the RSAF. We have thus taken steps to ensure that training flights over residential areas are minimised whenever possible, that they are conducted safely and that they are in accordance to norms prescribed by international aviation bodies, such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the Federal Aviation Authority of the United States. These norms govern the minimum flying altitudes designed to ensure the safety of residents living in close proximity to airbases, airports or air fields. They are similar to those adopted in airports which operate in densely-populated cities as well as where civilian helicopters are used for transportation in major cities and land on helipads on high-rise buildings in densely populated areas. So it is not uncommon for aircraft and helicopters, even civilian ones, to operate over densely populated areas.

While we cannot totally prevent machine failures from occurring, we will do our best to minimise the risk of such failures. The RSAF has in place a comprehensive maintenance programme to ensure the air worthiness of our aircraft. In addition, all our pilots undergo regular emergency aircraft training; and discussions on emergency procedures are carried out as part of every pre-flight preparation. This is to ensure that the pilots are able to respond quickly and professionally in order to minimise any risk posed to the public in the event of an aircraft emergency.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Given that detection of corrosion in the AISB valve did not happen this time round, are the RSAF and all the

manufacturers working on a means to detect corrosion or any other faults in the AISB valve for future engines?

Yes, certainly. Mr Speaker, Sir, the airforce as an operator of the aircraft follows strictly the maintenance and inspection procedures that are mandated by the aircraft manufacturer based on its experience garnered from many years of producing aircraft and also, in the case of the Apache, many years of operating the aircraft. As I said, this is the first time such a failure due to corrosion of this valve has occurred. So this is a new occurrence. We are discussing, together with the manufacturers, what procedures – maintenance procedures, replacement procedures and lifting procedures – which will be able to prevent the recurrence of such an event.

I would like to ask about safety emergency procedures for a fighter aircraft and pilot training aircraft flying over Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, broadly speaking, the same procedures apply. In the case of a training aircraft, there is always an experienced instructor pilot together with the trainee. So he will be able to handle all the emergencies that arise. In fact, training aircraft are, in general, quite safe compared to other aircraft. They are designed that way for extra safety. Perhaps, I should cite one example. Members will recall that on 15th January 2009 in the United States, the US Airways Flight 1549 which was a scheduled commercial passenger flight, an Airbus A320, was on its way from New York to North Carolina when it encountered a bird strike during its initial climb out from LaGuardia Airport in New York. This resulted in a complete loss of power in both engines. The pilots determined that they were unable to reliably reach any air field safely and elected to glide the aircraft towards the

Hudson River before executing an emergency landing on the river. The river is in the middle of New York city. I do not think it was pre-designated as an emergency landing site by the Civil Aviation Authority. But these things do happen. Pilots are trained to deal with them and, in this case, quite clearly, the pilot did an excellent job and the incident had been described by some as the most successful ditching in aviation history and the pilot and aircrew were lauded for their heroism in bringing the aircraft down safely on the river.

Mr Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that the corrosion has never happened before, according to the manufacturer, and the probability of having more corrosion is even rarer. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is the age of this helicopter.

Before this incident, the RSAF had flown some 28,000 accident-free Apache hours since operating the aircraft eight years ago. So, this is a relatively new aircraft and the aircraft is maintained regularly according to the procedures specified by the manufacturer. Our maintenance standards are very high.

Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he would recommend to the manufacturer to look into the redundancy issue. The Apache has two engines and, as I understand it, it can fly with one. But if both engines can fail at the same time, then the issue of redundancy has not been properly addressed. My follow-up question is: would the Minister comment on how our pilots perform when both engines failed on them?

Certainly, we were very surprised by this incident because, as the Member has said, the Apache is designed as a highly redundant aircraft

meant to take combat hits, carry out its mission and bring the crew home. So we were very surprised by this incident because the Apache is a very robust aircraft. In fact, we did not have any accident with it for over 28,000 flying hours over eight years. So this was a very unique case. The valve that was installed was corroded. It did not happen before. So we are examining, together with the manufacturer, why such a thing occurred in the first place and also whether there are maintenance procedures which can be taken to prevent it from occurring. It could be, for example, replacing a valve more frequently or sending the valve for tear-down and re-certification more frequently. These are currently not in the maintenance procedures, and we will certainly do so.

As regards the performance of the pilots, this was carefully evaluated by the airforce and the conclusion is that the pilots did very well under the circumstances. In an emergency like this, they typically have a minute or two like in the LaGuardia case, they had three minutes. So the pilots must have great presence of mind and must take the right decisions. In the case of these pilots, they did have another option and that would have been to carry on and try to land the aircraft in a forested area which was adjacent to where they had landed. If they had done so, I think they would have been at higher risk themselves. They saw the open field, checked that it was clear and decided to make a landing there. The airforce's conclusion is that they made the right call and did well.

Last question, Assoc. Prof. Tay.

Sir, first, I would like to apologise for my ignorance because I do not quite understand these things. But, typically, Sir, in an incident like this, how much response time will the ground

staff have? I am thinking if there was sufficient time for the nearest Police post, or whatever, to go to the area that is designated for the emergency landing to try to clear the area. In this instance, if the school had been dismissed at that time and kids were spewing out from the school, I think we could not have avoided fatalities.

I would like to make a few points. Firstly, as I said, in answer to previous supplementary questions, if there had been any risk to the population, the pilots would not have landed, even at great risks to themselves. They would not have done so. Pilots are trained to do that, and that is what they would do. Secondly, the area in which they landed was about 400 metres or more from the nearest building – 400 metres is a considerable distance. I had a look at the place myself on the evening of the incident. It was about 400 to 500 metres away from the school and any other building. So the pilots, in my assessment, chose the place well, given the limited time that they had.

So the issue of whether or not there are people who can respond within the two or three minutes to clear the place, that does not really arise because if it is a place with people, and the pilots can avoid landing there and land somewhere else even at risk to themselves, they would have done so. But I must say also that the Police were very quick on the scene. They arrived on the scene within minutes and cordoned off the area.

7. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether growth in the third quarter of 2010 is likely to slow significantly and whether

there exists a possibility of a technical recession.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on 14th October 2010, the Ministry of Trade and Industry released the advance GDP estimates for the third quarter of 2010. It showed that the Singapore economy grew by 10% on a year-on-year basis in the third quarter of 2010, following record growth of around 20% in the second quarter. However, the growth momentum has declined. On a quarter-on-quarter seasonally adjusted annualised basis, GDP contracted by 20% in the third quarter.

This decline in growth momentum reflects three key factors. First, there is an expected correction from the exceptional growth in the first half of 2010. After the sharp rebound in the beginning of the year, external demand has eased markedly in recent months. As a result, growth in our externally oriented sectors such as manufacturing and trade-related services moderated in the third quarter.

Second, within the manufacturing sector, there was a sharp decline in biomedical manufacturing (BMS) output. This was due to a switch in the value-mix of products and plant maintenance shutdowns during the quarter.

Third, the construction sector registered a contraction on a quarter-on-quarter basis due to the completion of key commercial and industrial building projects earlier in the year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the pace of recovery in the global economy is expected to remain subdued for the rest of the year. This will affect the performance of our manufacturing and trade-dependent services sectors. The biomedical manufacturing (BMS cluster) could also continue to be

affected by some scheduled plant maintenance shutdowns. Therefore, a technical recession, which analysts define as two consecutive periods of negative quarter-on-quarter growth, could occur in the second half of the year. If this were to happen, it would largely be a reflection of the sharp swings in the BMS cluster.

However, we remain on track to achieving the overall growth forecast of 13%-15% for the whole of 2010. Growth in the rest of the year will be underpinned by a number of industry-specific factors. In particular, continued growth in global demand for electronic products will lend some support to the electronics and precision engineering clusters. Increasing visitor arrivals driven by a resurgent Asian market and new tourism product offerings such as the Integrated Resorts will also continue to bolster our tourism-related sectors.

Thank you, Senior Minister of State, for the response. I have two supplementary questions: firstly, what are the strategies in place and how prepared are we to meet such an eventuality of a declined growth in Singapore; and secondly, how will the United States plan to deflate its economy and boost its exports impact the global economy, in particular Singapore's?

Mr Speaker, Sir, Members would be well aware that opinion is divided on the impact the quantitative easing announced by the US Federal Reserves will have on the US economy. In any event, it is likely to have countervailing implications for us. On the one hand, yes, the Singapore dollar will appreciate vis-à-vis the US dollar. However, if the quantitative easing succeeds in stimulating consumption and business investment, then that in turn will have a positive impact on our economy. So, it is too early to judge how this would play out and impact our economy and, indeed, Asia and other countries. As far

as our strategy is concerned, as I said earlier, the expectation is that growth will moderate in the second half and in 2011 to a level that is more sustainable. Our strategy is to ensure that we remain a well-diversified economy and emphasise key elements of competitiveness including productivity, which is an object of the Committee headed by the Deputy Prime Minister.

8. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development in view of the recent changes in HDB policy and ownership of overseas properties (a) what is the rationale of this policy; (b) whether HDB will allow exemptions to those who inherited foreign properties out of bequests; and (c) how will HDB trace whether a HDB owner has a foreign property.

9. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many transactions of private properties by Permanent Residents (PRs) and foreigners were recorded in the last 24 months as compared to Singaporeans and, of these, how many were for (i) landed properties and (ii) condominiums; (b) whether there are any figures to indicate the regularity of the flipping of such properties by PRs and foreigners; and (c) what has been the rate of increase in the number of flipped properties.

10. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for National Development following the introduction of measures to cool the property market (a) what is the likely market reaction to these measures in the next five years; (b) what is the likely impact on the property market within a 10-year time frame; (c) what is the Government's assessment of the current market direction; and (d) whether there has been any new influx of foreign funds into the property market.

Sir, may I take Question Nos. 8, 9 and 10 together?

Yes.

Sir, the Government introduced the recent set of property measures to pre-empt a speculative bubble from forming, to encourage greater financial prudence and to reinforce the objective of long-term owner occupation for public housing.

Er Lee Bee Wah has asked about the policy rationale to disallow ownership of overseas properties for HDB flat buyers. Under current HDB policy, subsidised flat buyers are not allowed to concurrently own a HDB flat and private property, local or overseas, within the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP). This ensures that those who can afford private property anywhere do not compete for limited public housing subsidies. With effect from 30th August this year, HDB also subjects buyers of non-subsidised flats to the same rule. This aligns the treatment for all buyers of HDB flats within their MOP. It also dampens demand from those who are not in urgent need of housing.

Owners of private property can buy a non-subsidised HDB flat if they dispose of their private properties within six months of flat purchase. Specific to Er Lee's question, HDB is unable to allow exemptions for those who inherited these overseas properties as a general policy. However, I will ask HDB to look into the circumstances of special cases, on appeal.

At the point of purchase, HDB flat buyers are required to declare any interest or ownership in private property, local or overseas. False declarations carry serious consequences. Anyone found guilty shall be liable to a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for a term of up to six months or both. If the false declaration is

discovered before the completion of the purchase, HDB can cancel the application. HDB will conduct spot-checks, both local and overseas. If the false declaration is discovered after purchase of the flat, HDB can compulsorily acquire the flat. For practical reasons, HDB adopts different approaches to check on private property ownership in different countries. I am unable to disclose the details to avoid hampering HDB's enforcement work.

Mdm Cynthia Phua wants to know the market reaction to the measures. As they have been introduced less than two months ago, it is too early to assess their full impact. So far, there are signs of greater stability in the market. Based on URA's flash estimate of the Property Price Index (PPI), the increase in prices of private residential properties moderated to 3.1% in the third quarter from 5.3% in the previous quarter. The take-up of private residential properties has decreased in September this year as compared to August, and the recent level of sub-sales has also been relatively low. In the public housing market, the number of resale flat transactions in September has decreased by 25% compared to August. Mdm Phua has also asked what the property market will be like in five to 10 years' time. Sir, I wish I knew what the market will be like next year, let alone in five or 10 years' time. While we cannot foresee the future, we can monitor the market closely and we can act fast to pre-empt problems along the way.

Next, Mdm Ho has asked about property purchases by foreigners. Local buyers make up the vast majority of purchasers of private housing in Singapore. In the second quarter, Permanent Residents (PRs) and foreigners accounted for 13% and 12% respectively of all private residential transactions. These figures are close to the average of 12% for PRs and 10% for foreigners over the past two years.

The proportion of landed residential properties purchased by PRs and foreigners has also been relatively low, accounting for less than 6% of all landed housing transactions in the past two years. The majority of sub-sales of uncompleted private residential properties are also accounted for by Singaporeans, rather than by PRs and foreigners, who together accounted for about 27% of all sub-sales over the last two years.

Sir, in conclusion, the latest property measures will promote a more stable and sustainable market over the longer term. This will benefit all parties. By dampening demand from those who are not in urgent need of housing as well as increasing our total housing supply, we will also help more first-timers to buy their first homes. We will continue to monitor the market closely to ensure that our policies stay relevant.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister, since the introduction of the new HDB policy, how many cases of appeals has the HDB received and how many of these appeals are successful.

I do not have the exact number of appeals but in terms of appeals from PRs – I presume the Member is asking about PRs – we have so far received a few hundred appeals, which is not large in comparison to the total number of transactions. HDB is assessing each of these appeals and it will make an appropriate decision on each case, as merited by the details of the case.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very concerned about what the Minister has said that he would not know the impact of the market in one year's time, following the repeated measures that he introduced in the real estate market. I am very sure that the Minister, based on the statistics that he has, would be able to know or at least

understand the upper limit of the reaction of the market and the parameters that he has set. We just want to understand the Minister's prediction based on those parameters. Would he continue to introduce measures to curb real estate prices, and will they be reduced or increased further?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the way the market behaves depends on many, many factors. The current situation is not unique to Singapore. Many other economies in the region are also very concerned about a property bubble forming. Members would be aware that recently the governments in Hong Kong, China and Taiwan concerned about a property bubble forming, in fact, have implemented various measures to cool the market, somewhat similar to ours but in varying degrees.

It is very difficult for anyone to predict or determine what the market is going to be like in a year's time. In fact, in my reply, I mentioned that even for this year, for September, when we implemented the measures in end of August, it is still too early for us to tell what the full impact of these measures is. The market is a dynamic one and how the market reacts to these measures will depend not just on the measures themselves but also on what happens elsewhere – what is the liquidity in the market, what is the interest rate like, what are the kinds of funds that are coming in, what are the alternative investments and the psychology of the market. Given these many factors involved in shaping the market, I think it would be presumptuous or even foolhardy of me to predict what the market would be like in one year.

Will we be announcing more measures? It ultimately depends on the situation. We have taken an approach of having few calibrated steps rather than one big-bang approach to try to cool the market. By taking these calibrated steps one at a time, we are able to let the air

out of the bubble as it were gradually, rather than to prick the bubble and let it burst. Because when the property bubble burst, a lot of people would be hurt, not to mention the economy as a whole. That is the reason we have taken this calibrated approach. Of course, each time we do this, some people would be affected. But it is far better for us to take this approach and to make sure that people are aware of the implications of a bubble forming rather than to have a big-bang approach where many people would be hurt and the unintended consequences of that may be even more severe than what we wanted to have.

Sir, I have one supplementary question for the Minister. I would like to ask the Minister, besides the imposition of the seller's stamp duty, what other criteria are applied to PRs and foreigners purchasing private residential properties in order for the Government to ensure that we have a better differentiation of citizens and PRs that can be achieved through rights to landed properties in Singapore.

I do not think the Member is suggesting that we totally close off the market to the PRs and foreigners. What I think the Member is asking is: what are the criteria we use to monitor the purchase of properties by PRs and foreigners? For landed properties, the Residential Property Act is supervised by the Ministry of Law, which restricts the purchase of landed properties by PRs to only those who make a contribution or significant contribution to Singapore. The rest of the market for non-landed properties is open to all. We are a cosmopolitan city, and I think it is important for us to remain so. So, foreigners and PRs should be allowed to buy properties. Many of them work and invest here. It is not a question of not allowing any purchases by foreigners or PRs at all.

It is

to monitor how much of the market is actually made up of foreigners and PRs. In fact, our statistics show consistently that even at the height of the market, the majority of the buyers in the private property market are Singaporeans.

Sir, we have had from time to time taken measures to try to calibrate this if we see that the numbers are going up. We have made changes to the stamp duty by imposing a seller's stamp duty. We have changed the period whereby the seller's stamp duty applies from one year to three years. We had, in the past, implemented other measures as well, for example, the taking up of loans by foreigners. So, we will continue to monitor the market closely. I think that is the best we can do at this stage and where we see that there is a danger of the market heating up further or not moving in a healthy direction, we reserve the right to take the appropriate action.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan, last question.

Sir, the feedback I have is that there have been so many changes in the rules that they have caused quite a lot of inconvenience to the residents. Can I ask the Minister whether the HDB has studied the benefits of having so many policy changes versus the inconvenience caused to the many residents that we have? Can there be a step-by-step increase in the measures taken instead of having so many steps at one go, including the increase in MOP, the stamp duty as well as the restriction on ownership of foreign properties? Can there be a more staggered approach rather than so many policy changes at one go?

Let me take one step back to explain what are the fundamental reasons for these changes. There are three reasons I would like to offer to the House for the measures that

we have taken. Two of the reasons pertain to the HDB market and the third, the broader property market.

For HDB, the first point is that we really want to reinforce this policy objective that HDB flats are primarily for long-term owner-occupation, not short-term investment, not speculation. By increasing the Minimum-Occupation Period (MOP) from one year, then to three years and to five years recently for non-subsidised flats, we reinforce this point. What this does is to discourage people or prospective buyers whose interest is to buy for a quick capital gain or for rental yield, and not for long-term owner-occupation, not to stay in for the long term.

The second fundamental reason we introduced these measures is to help first-time buyers to buy their first flat. First-time homeowners, I think Members would agree, are in more urgent need of a home or a flat to start a family. Currently, we have rules that govern subsidised flats. I have mentioned one of them earlier which is the no concurrent ownership rule. For subsidised flats, if you buy a new HDB flat, you are not allowed within that MOP period to concurrently own that flat and private property. What we did was simply apply that same rule – no concurrent ownership – to buyers of non-subsidised flats. It was a very straightforward move to align the policy for both subsidised and non-subsidised flats. But when we did that, of course, there were people who were affected or people who were, as the Member suggested, inconvenienced. But what it did do was to dampen the demand from those who already have a private property so as to prevent them from competing in the same market with the first-time home owners. By not competing with the young couples, by holding back their purchases, we are actually reducing the demand for resale flats at this point in time. I think we are beginning to see the impact of that. Resale transactions are

coming down. I believe that the prices are starting to stabilise and, in fact, coming down slightly. The COVs are also coming down. That is as far as the HDB market is concerned.

The third reason is that we want to prevent this property bubble from forming in the overall market. We have done this in several calibrated steps. We do not want to slam on the brakes straightaway but we want to just tap on the brakes gently as we see the property market starting to heat up. That has helped people to understand or at least be a little more careful and cautious about their property purchases. Being prudent about property purchases is not a bad thing. In fact, many of the people who are complaining, who are upset with the new property measures, are those who feel that they are being prevented from joining the party. They think there is a party going on, so why are we preventing them from making money, but they forget that that party may end. It is better for us to add a dose of caution to let people be more careful about their purchases. We are not preventing people from upgrading. You can continue to do so. You can continue to get a loan. But instead of getting a loan for 80% of the purchase value, you now get 70%. If residents can afford the 30% downpayment and take a loan of 70% of the property value, they can still upgrade.

Those are the three fundamental reasons we are acting the way we have. We want to take careful, calibrated steps. We do not want to make it one big bang. How many steps we have taken previously and in the future really depends on how the market reacts to this particular adjustment.

Finally, I submit that what we are doing will benefit everybody – those who are in the market today, those who are already homeowners as well as those who are thinking of buying because a stable

property market will benefit everybody concerned.

11. Mr Viswa Sadasivan asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in light of the next UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference in November 2010 (a) whether detailed carbon emission reduction measures have been drawn up or implemented for the various sectors in Singapore to meet the 16% target committed to at the 2009 Copenhagen Conference; (b) whether Singapore is on track to meet the target; and (c) what innovative measures or approaches have been employed.

Sir, in the run-up to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December 2009, Singapore pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 16% below Business-as-Usual levels in 2020, contingent on a legally-binding global agreement in which all parties implement their commitments in good faith.

The 16% pledge is a stretch target and includes the measures announced earlier under the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint (SSB) in April 2009. This is a substantial commitment on our part, bearing in mind our constraints in terms of our low alternative energy potential and the significant measures we already took to reduce our emissions in the past. As a non-Annex 1 country, we are not required to commit to an emissions reductions target. However, we are prepared to do so using our own resources as a responsible member of the international community.

Achieving this target will entail significant economic and social costs. It will require all households, firms, and the economy to make significant adjustments. Naturally, we are prepared to commit to such a target only if there is a legally-binding global agreement. Singapore's carbon emissions are very low and account for less than 0.2% of global emissions. Without such a global agreement to address climate change, our efforts alone will be meaningless and will mean imposing costs and sacrifices on our citizens without any real effect on global climate change.

Singapore has thus given full support to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in reaching a legally-binding global agreement to address climate change. Negotiations are on-going under the UNFCCC. It is unlikely that a final legally-binding agreement will be reached by the next Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico later this year, but all countries should continue to try working towards reaching such an agreement in subsequent conferences.

Nevertheless, in the absence of a global agreement, Singapore will still take significant steps to implement the mitigation and energy efficiency measures already announced under the SSB. The SSB represents a major national effort to reduce emissions. We will do this regardless of whether a global deal is reached. These measures include the implementation of the minimum Green Mark standards for all new buildings in Singapore, Minimum Energy Performance Standards for household appliances which will be introduced in 2011, and the Energy Conservation Act which will come into force in 2013.

At the same time, Sir, we are also carefully studying the additional mitigation measures that would be needed to fulfil the 16% pledge when a legally-binding global agreement is reached. These

measures will have to be phased in progressively, to give everyone time to adjust. The Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change (IMCCC), chaired by the Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security Prof. S Jayakumar and of which I am a member, is looking into both the domestic and international aspects of climate change.

Five main sectors will be the focus of our domestic mitigation efforts: transport, buildings, households, industry and power generation. Achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions in each of these sectors will require a judicious combination of price signals, fiscal incentives and regulations. These policies and measures should encourage investment in energy efficiency technologies and changes in energy consumption patterns.

As a responsible member of the international community, Singapore will play its part in the ongoing global efforts to mitigate climate change. Agencies will work out and see through the optimal mix of policies and measures, taking into account factors such as emission reduction potential, economic competitiveness and energy security.

I thank the Minister. Could the Minister give one or two specific examples of measures that the Government has started taking which do not inflict a social, economic cost on Singaporeans?

Sir, there are already measures that were put in place. One of the most effective is behavioural change where users, such as you and me, can adopt energy efficient appliances at home so that we can lower our energy demand. We have already moved to label energy-efficient appliances so that we provide the opportunity for consumers to make informed choices. In fact, several agencies, including the TCs, will switch over to more energy-saving

light bulbs when they change the light bulbs along the corridors. These are the things in which we can do progressively to ensure that the economy and society can adjust to the commitments.

Other measures will take time. I have mentioned in my reply that we have already imposed a new minimum Green Mark Standard for new buildings. This will be imposed on all new buildings. In terms of existing buildings, this will progressively be incorporated as building owners, for example, change the chillers and so on. Meanwhile, we have put in place incentive schemes for building owners to tap on so that they can do an energy audit to decide on the energy savings that they can make within their buildings.

I do not think we have time for another question. Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 14-15, 17-18, 20, 24, 26 and 27 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos. 12-13, 16, 19, 21-23 and 25 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament. ]

*Cols.1403-1418.

"to amend the Civil Defence Act (Chapter 42 of the 2001 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.

"to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 86 of the 2005 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr S Iswaran); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Charities Act (Chapter 37 of the 2007 Revised Edition), and to make related amendment to the Companies Act (Chapter 50 of the 2006 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Residential Property Act (Chapter 274 of the 2009 Revised Edition) and to make related amendments to the Land Titles Act (Chapter 157 of the 2004 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Industrial Relations Act (Chapter 136 of the 2004 Revised Edition) and to make related amendments to the Employment Act (Chapter 91 of the 2009 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.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Maintenance of Parents Act (Chapter 167B of the 1996 Revised Edition).

Mr Speaker, Sir, at this year's Committee of Supply Debate on the Budget for the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, I accepted Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan's suggestion to move a private Member's Bill to amend the Act. The 10-member work group that I had assembled has completed its review and recommendations.

Sir, the key objective of our review is to enhance the effectiveness of the Act for its beneficiaries whilst retaining its original intention of deterring unfilial adult children from neglecting their duty to care for their parents. To reiterate, the review is not an attempt to legislate filial piety; rather, it emphasises the principles which our social safety net is based on – that of personal responsibility, family responsibility and the many "helping-hands" approach. Filial piety continues to be a value that the vast majority of our society holds dear. Nonetheless, the Act is applicable and necessary for a minority group of vulnerable parents. The proposed amendments are a response to changing social landscape and an ageing society that will place increasing stresses on families, and a greater need to build more resilient families in the face of such pressures.

Sir, the Act embraces key principles that bear emphasis.

The first is the principle of reciprocity of care. In application, this means that the Tribunal or the Commissioner for the

Maintenance of Parents will consider all circumstances of the parties involved, including parents' treatment of their children and their past spending habits. These considerations determine the merits of the case and the final verdict or agreement that is reached. The Act is neither a means for parents to demand money to meet their frivolous needs nor is it an avenue parents may abuse to demand for support from children whom they had not contributed to their upbringing.

A second key principle is the emphasis on reconciliation. We recognise that to most parents the notion of taking one's children to Court is a drastic, almost unthinkable option. And in a bid to maintain family ties, we advocate that differences be resolved amicably, not through legal means as a first resort. The importance of this non-adversarial approach has been further strengthened in our review by giving more attention and creating the space for conciliation.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Maintenance of Parents Act (Chapter 167B of the 1996 Revised Edition).

Who is prepared to introduce the Bill, Mr Seah?

I am, Sir.

Please proceed.

Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Maintenance of Parents Act (Chapter 167B of the 1996 Revised Edition)".

Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

On the next available sitting, Sir.

So be it.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.05 pm

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

The Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2010 comprises two categories of legislative changes. The first category puts into legal effect the income tax changes announced in the 2010 Budget Statement. The second category covers other amendments to the Income Tax Act arising from the regular review of our income tax system.

The Income Tax (Amendment) Bill was released for public consultation from 28th June to 19th July this year. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) has revised the Bill to incorporate the suggestions that had been accepted for implementation.

Sir, most of the tax changes in this Bill have already been debated upon in this House following the announcement of the 2010 Budget Statement. Let me summarise some of these key changes.

First, the introduction of the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme to support enterprise investments in productivity and innovation. Clauses 2(a), 12 to 15, 17, 18(b), 23 to 25, 29 to 32, 51, 52 and 55(e) of the Bill provide for this change;

Second, a new tax allowance to help companies restructure, upgrade and expand their operations through mergers and acquisitions. This is provided for in clause 34;

Third, a Land Intensification Allowance to support enhanced land productivity among industrial land users. Clauses 22, 27, 54(a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), 55(a) to (c) provide for this change;

Fourth, the phasing out of the Industrial Building Allowance (IBA). Existing claimants can continue to claim the IBA on qualifying industrial buildings until the remaining expenditure of such buildings is written down. Clauses 19 to 22, 26, 54(a), (c), (e), (f) and 55(a) provide for this change;

Fifth, the Bill introduces a new tax incentive for angel investors to claim deductions for 50% of the cost of their investments in qualifying start-ups. Clauses 28(d) and 33 provide for this change; and

Sixth, various personal income tax reliefs such as the wife relief, parent and handicapped parent reliefs, dependant-related reliefs, and course fee relief are enhanced. These changes are covered by clauses 2(b), 35(a) to (g), 35(j) to (t) and 53.

Sir, I shall now deal with the other tax changes covered in this Bill that arise from the periodic review of our income tax policies and administration. Let me highlight three of these changes.

First, we will enhance the Global Trader Programme by extending its current list of qualifying activities to include qualifying structured commodity financing activities. This enhancement is aimed at attracting more sophisticated financing and risk management services to be performed in Singapore and further

strengthen our position as the leading trading hub in Asia. Clause 42 effects this change.

Second, we will introduce a new tax incentive for sovereign funds to encourage the building up of a cluster of sovereign funds as a niche class of financial institutions that promotes the development of our financial sector. This incentive, which takes effect for five years from 1st April 2010, will grant tax exemption on prescribed income derived by sovereign funds and their investment offices. Clause 10 provides for the introduction of this tax incentive.

Third, donors will be required to provide Unique Identification Numbers (UIN) or Unique Entity Numbers (UEN) for their donations to an Institution of a Public Character (IPC), unless the Comptroller waives such requirement. This mandatory provision is to streamline the processing of claims for tax deduction for such donations. Once the donors provide their unique numbers that I have just mentioned – both UIN or UEN – to the IPC, the donors would not need to make a separate claim in their tax returns as the donation would be automatically reflected in their tax assessment based on information from the IPC. This change will take effect from 1st January 2011. Clauses 28(a) and (c) effect this change.

The remaining six legislative changes arising from our periodic review of the income tax system are either technical in nature or relate to improvements in tax administration.

With the above changes, the Income Tax Act will be enhanced and updated to better achieve our economic and social objectives.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.10 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill seeks to implement the tax changes announced in the Government’s 2010 Budget Statement. I would like to focus on four issues relating to the proposed amendments.

Sir, clause 48 amends section 43P to provide that Structured Commodity Financing (SCF) activities will now be able to qualify for tax concessions. I understand that this move is to increase the competitiveness of Singapore's trading environment. As Asia continues to grow as the centre of the world’s trade flow, Singapore should similarly take this opportunity to build up our trading environment.

Reports have shown that the total revenue for companies under the Global Trader Programme (GTP) grew at a compounded annual growth rate of 14% over the last five years to US$465 billion. However, the total revenue of US$465 billion recorded last year was 30% lower than that of 2008.

Sir, under the enhanced GTP and SCF incentive, a concessionary tax rate of 5% or 10% will be granted on qualifying income derived by an approved company from qualifying SCF activities. I understand that this GTP enhancement is expected to contribute to higher trade volumes and to make up for the 30% reduction between 2008 and 2009. Sir, will this concessionary tax rate enjoy flexibility such that the percentage is adjusted to suit each year’s performance of companies under the GTP? Or will it be a fixed percentage?

It is important to remind ourselves that tax rates are but one factor in ensuring a competitive trading environment as well as the performance of such companies. Hence, much as we want to maintain competitive tax rates compared to other

countries, we should not be unnecessarily liberal with these concessions. May I clarify with the Minister on how the Government is planning to make up for this reduction in tax revenue, especially since there is a whole slew of tax incentive schemes in this Bill?

Sir, sections 37 and 37K will be amended to provide for the tax incentive for qualifying investments by angel investors, which is introduced to encourage eligible individuals to invest in start-up companies and to help these companies grow and succeed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a positive step because it provides incentives for these eligible investors to take up mentoring roles and contribute through their management expertise and business networks. This new scheme would also provide a source of entrepreneurial expertise to help nurture start-ups as they kick-off their businesses.

However, I note that angel investors who put in a minimum of $100,000 in eligible start-ups over a year, will enjoy the 50% tax deduction only at the end of a two-year holding period. I understand that the purpose of this holding period is to ensure that the investor is committed to the start-up.

However, considering the many mandatory requirements for angel investors to qualify for this tax scheme, is it necessary to impose such a stringent two-year holding period? The minimum required sum of $100,000 is already a huge sum and will be sufficient to ensure that angel investors are committed to the start-up. Hence, would the imposition of a further two-year holding period backfire and deter angel investors from investing? If so, this will not be in accordance with the original intention behind this tax incentive scheme. After all, there are already many mandatory requirements in place under the criteria to qualify for this scheme.

Sir, the next issue is on the increase in the income threshold of dependants for dependant-related reliefs. Currently, the income of the dependant cannot exceed $2,000 in the preceding year if a taxpayer wishes to claim for dependant-related reliefs. With the amendments, the income threshold of $2,000 will be increased to $4,000. Further, this income threshold condition will be removed for handicapped dependant-related reliefs. Accordingly, taxpayers would be able to claim handicapped dependant-related reliefs regardless of the income of the handicapped dependants, if other conditions are satisfied.

Sir, I understand that the purpose of removing this income threshold for handicapped dependant-related relief is to recognise the extra resources and attention needed in providing care for the disabled. On this note, may I seek clarification on why this income threshold was not removed in respect of parent relief in general? Likewise, extra resources and attention will be needed in providing care for the elderly, even if they are not disabled.

I am positive that the Government can do more to enhance the incentives for children to care for their parents, and this will be in line with the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill proposed by the hon. Member Mr Seah Kian Peng. After all, an all-round approach should be adopted to address this and tax relief would definitely be one incentive.

Fourth, is expansion of wife relief to spouse relief. Sir, the current wife relief is a $2,000 relief granted to male taxpayers who take care of their wives, subject to the income threshold for dependants. With the amendments, female taxpayers will now be allowed to claim relief of $2,000 if their husbands meet the same qualifying conditions of the current wife

relief. On behalf of all women, I would like to commend the Ministry for taking this step in light of the increasing number of female breadwinners in Singaporean households.

With that, I support the Bill.

3.16 pm

Thank you, Sir, for this opportunity to share my thoughts on this important Bill.

At the Budget debate, I had raised my concerns on the implications of the stress on productivity on family life. While I fully support the drive towards improving our productivity at the workplace, I am also mindful that this strategy of national growth will only work if Singapore workers feel empowered as active stakeholders in this endeavor, and when a healthy worklife balance is maintained.

Specifically, I am concerned that with this call to raise productivity, the workplace may be proliferated with training programmes and as employees are subjected to increased demands from training to level up their skills, little attention will be placed on monitoring the quality of the various productivity skills enhancement programmes.

In this regard, I would like to share a suggestion on how we can leverage on the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Scheme provisions in the Bill to promote more effective training.

Clause 17, section 6, details the various training schemes that qualify for tax exemptions.

May I suggest that instead of giving out tax exemptions indiscriminately, training expenditure will only be eligible for tax exemption if the employee feedback on the respective programme is positive. It is not unusual in education

that incentives will only be given to instructors if the student feedback, for example, for the module conducted achieves at least a "satisfactory" rating.

Taking a similar stance, we should institutionalise systematic feedback in training programmes that include indicators on the quality of trainer and materials covered, and if the training had imparted practical skills that could be applied in the workplace to level up productivity. The feedback will give employees a voice in shaping the quality and nature of their work-based training programmes, and encourage employees to be active stakeholders in the quest to improve productivity. Concurrently, it will also serve to ensure that only quality training programmes can sustain.

Related to this, I have a second query. Before an enterprise receives tax exemption under the PIC Scheme provisions, will the claims, for example, on equipment and software have to be rationalised on how productivity would be raised through these investments? Personally, I think they should be rationalised as the tax exemptions are specifically for investment in raising productivity. However, my proposal does flag certain concerns. For example, how will productivity be measured? And how will the claims be audited? I do not have the answers.

Thank you, Sir, for your patience.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Mdm Ho Geok Choo and Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan for their comments on the Bill. I will deal with their points in turn.

First, Mdm Ho had queries relating to the extension of the Global Trader Programme (GTP) incentive to structured commodity financing activities. I think Mdm Ho viewed the GTP extension as

something to offset the impact of the reduction in total revenue of GTP companies, which is quite a large reduction of 30% from 2008 to 2009. And she asked if the concessionary tax rate under the GTP, going forward, would be adjusted based on the performance of the GTP companies each year. The GTP is not, in fact, aimed at making up for any reduction in revenues of GTP companies in any particular year. What we are aiming to do is to attract a larger critical mass of sophisticated financing and risk management services into Singapore, thus strengthening our position as a leading trading hub in Asia.

The concessionary tax rates of 5% or 10% under the GTP are fixed and subject to the recipients meeting their commitments, in terms of business spending or employment of professionals, over the incentive period. The rates are not adjusted based on the performance, in terms of turnover or revenue, of GTP companies for each year. This fixing of the rates in advance provides certainty to the GTP companies and allows them to plan ahead and invest in their people.

Mdm Ho also asked how the Government is planning to make up for a reduction in tax revenue arising from this enhancement of the GTP scheme. The reduction in tax revenues is, in large part, notional. Without the GTP incentives, some of the activities would not be here. While there would be actual tax losses for activities that would have come or remained here without incentives, overall, we believe that our incentives serve to strengthen the sector, create spin offs for other businesses and hence increase tax revenues over the long term. In the case of the current GTP enhancement, companies carrying out structured commodity financing activities would have to grow and meet incremental commitments in order to enjoy the concessionary tax rates.

Second, Mdm Ho asked whether it is too stringent for angel investors to hold their investment in the qualifying start-ups for at least two years in order to enjoy the tax deduction for their investment. Our two-year holding period is, I believe, quite reasonable. We want angel investors to commit to contributing funds, expertise and experience to help grow the startups. An early exit would suggest a different motivation, different from that of wanting to nurture start-up companies. The holding period is also necessary to balance between making the scheme attractive and preventing abuse of the scheme as a means of enjoying lower personal income tax rates. A few other countries have similar schemes for angel investors. In the UK and Ireland, the scheme, in fact, requires a holding period of three to five years.

Third, Mdm Ho asked if the income threshold should be removed in respect of parent relief, similar to what the Bill puts into effect for handicapped parent relief. Both the parent and handicapped parent reliefs provide recognition to individuals supporting their dependent parents. There is, therefore, a need to have a threshold to determine whether the parents can be considered as dependants. We have doubled the income threshold to $4,000 per year. Strictly, this income threshold should apply to both sets of parent reliefs – the general parent relief as well as the handicapped parent relief. Nonetheless, the Government recognises that apart from financial resources, the time, resources and attention needed in caring for a handicapped person is typically of a very different order, compared to looking after other dependants. As a concession, we have, therefore, removed the income threshold for tax reliefs relating to handicapped dependants. This includes the handicapped parent relief.

To remove the income threshold for the parent relief, in general, irrespective of

whether the parent is a dependant or not, will also amount to cutting the personal income tax rate for a much broader group of taxpayers. It amounts to a macro policy change. Whether we should adjust personal income tax rates is a separate issue which we will continue to review in the future.

I now move on to the issues raised by Assoc. Prof. Straughan with regard to the Productivity and Innovation Credit Scheme. Assoc. Prof. Straughan was concerned that the enhanced tax deductions for spending on training, equipment or software would be granted indiscriminately. It could, she felt, result in a proliferation of trading schemes, for example, without assurance of quality or effectiveness.

She also suggested that feedback could be obtained from employees on whether the training courses were useful before granting the tax deductions and, likewise, that the company be required to justify or rationalise how productivity will be raised through its investments before it receives its tax deductions. It may be helpful if I first explain that there are two distinct forms of fiscal incentives that we use to support our economic objectives. First, we have discretionary fiscal incentives in supporting focused objectives, such as the development of a new high value industrial cluster that has spin offs for the rest of the economy or the growth of R&D capabilities in the sector. Examples of this approach of using discretionary fiscal incentives include the pioneer status tax incentives for manufacturing and service industries, the Research Incentive Scheme for Companies (RISC) which provides co-funding for corporate R&D and, in fact, the Global Trader Programme (GTP) tax incentives that we were just discussing. So that is one type of fiscal incentive.

The second type comprises across-the-board fiscal incentives which aim at

tilting behaviour in the economy or society at large, for example, to promote economic upgrading and investments in productivity, wherever possible, in any sector or company. These two types of fiscal incentives have to be administered quite differently. The discretionary incentives like the pioneer status or the GTP scheme are granted only where the Government agencies administering that incentive are satisfied that the company merits the incentive because of the value it adds to Singapore and that it has committed to meeting specific investment targets or other deliverables. The company's performance of these specific deliverables is tracked. This is different from fiscal incentives which support economic restructuring across-the-board.

The Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) is a major example of a broad-based fiscal incentive for economic restructuring. It is impractical and, in fact, not desirable to attempt to manage company's use of such schemes administratively. The PIC gives companies a clear and strong incentive to invest in their workers, equipment, software or R&D. A company still has skin in the game when they do so. They still bear more than 50% of the training cost or cost of investment in machinery, although they can get further subsidies from the Workforce Development Authority (WDA) for approved training schemes. It is in their interests to spend wisely on training to ensure that the courses are indeed relevant to raising the skills of their employees or to invest in machinery that truly raises their game in productivity. We should, therefore, let them decide which expenditures are most effective and to plan and invest ahead with certainty on whether they qualify for the PIC. In particular, we should avoid making companies report to IRAS on post-training outcomes for every training course attended by their employees or to justify how their investments in equipment actually raise productivity. The claim process for the PIC should not be

cumbersome, given especially that the scheme aims to encourage productivity enhancements amongst a broad base of our SMEs. The market will decide which companies invest most successfully. This includes the employment market.

I quite agree with Assoc. Prof. Straughan that employees should be empowered as active stakeholders in raising productivity. Employees will ultimately judge if this is so. However, I should add that while the PIC covers training expenditures, any inhouse training will need to be certified by the WDA or the ITE. The WDA which disburses training subsidies does, in fact, have quality assurance systems in place which include post-training feedback from employers and employees to ensure that the courses remain relevant and value-adding. This is much like what Assoc. Prof. Straughan had in mind.

The PIC should also be viewed in context of the full range of discretionary grant schemes in supporting productivity enhancement which are being administered by various agencies and overseen by the National Productivity and Continuing Education Council. These grant schemes allow us to catalyse the changes that are required in several sectors like construction and food and beverage. These changes would involve coordinated efforts by enterprises, unions and Government agencies so as to maximise productivity improvements. We have decided on a deliberate balance between across-the-board tax incentives which leave room for free market forces and discretionary grants which are targeted at sector and industry-focused efforts at raising productivity.

Finally, I agree with Assoc. Prof. Straughan that efforts to improve productivity will work best if they go hand-in-hand with maintaining a healthy work-life balance. It is worth reiterating that productivity improvement is not about working longer hours or generating

greater stress on the job. Through process improvements, upgraded technologies, better management and training up for better skills and by everyone working smarter, enterprises can increase the value each worker contributes without extra hours on the job. That is higher productivity, and is ultimately how workers can receive higher wages and enjoy a higher standard of living. To stick with low productivity operations will only mean the opposite – in other words, workers spending longer hours on the job in order to get higher wages. Higher productivity is, therefore, part and parcel of achieving a good work-life balance in Singapore.

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 Tharman Shanmugaratnam]

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

Order for Second Reading read.

3.33 pm

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

The Stamp Duties (Amendment No. 2) Bill 2010 comprises five amendments. One amendment gives legislative effect to a Budget 2010 initiative, while the remaining four amendments arise from the periodic review of our stamp duty system.

In the Budget 2010 Statement, I had announced the introduction of a stamp duty relief and income tax allowance for qualifying mergers and acquisitions (M&As). These tax concessions aim to facilitate corporate restructuring, especially amongst small and medium size enterprises. Under the stamp duty relief scheme for qualifying M&As, acquirers can be granted up to $200,000 of stamp duty relief per financial year for the acquisition of ordinary shares. This change takes effect from 1st April 2010. Clauses 3 and 6 of the Bill provide for this stamp duty relief for qualifying M&As.

I will now proceed to explain three other key non-Budget amendments in the Bill.

First, currently, based on the Interpretation Act, the Minister for Finance can impose conditions for any reduction or remission of stamp duty granted under section 74 of the Stamp Duties Act. We will now provide for this power explicitly in the Stamp Duties Act. The amendment will also make clear that where the conditions imposed are not complied with, the amount of stamp duty earlier reduced or remitted will be recoverable as a debt due to the Government. Clause 9 of the Bill reflects this change. The change will take effect from the date of gazette.

Second, Section 15 of the Act currently provides for stamp duty relief for the reconstruction and amalgamation of companies, asset transfer between associated entities and conversion of a firm to a limited partnership. On any breach in the qualifying conditions for the stamp duty relief, the stamp duty earlier relieved can be recovered by the Government. We will amend the Act to provide that late payment of this stamp duty to be recovered will attract penalties. This change will take effect from the date of gazette of the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill provides for this change.

Third, we will amend the Act to make explicit that the levy of the seller’s stamp duty will apply to all transfer instruments for prescribed property transactions. Typically, in a property transaction, both parties concerned would first enter into a sale and purchase contract or agreement before executing the conveyance instrument to transfer the property to the buyer. This amendment will make clear that the sellers’ stamp duty will apply not just to contracts or agreements for the transfer of properties, but also to any conveyance instrument for the transfer of such properties without a contract or agreement. This amendment will take effect from 20th February 2010, which is when the SSD was introduced for residential properties sold within the prescribed holding period. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for this change.

Sir, the final legislative change being introduced arose from our periodic review of the stamp duty system. It is technical in nature and involves no policy change.

Mr Speaker, 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 Tharman Shanmugaratnam].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

3.38 pm

Mr Speaker,

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

The last major review of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (SCJA) was in 1993. This Bill seeks to update the Act in light of developments since then. It also rationalises various court procedures and processes, primarily, as they apply to civil cases.

Sir, these amendments, together with those in the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill which I will move later, arose out of recommendations made in two Reports helmed by the Judiciary. The first is the Report on the rationalisation of legislation relating to leave to appeal by the Law Reform Committee of the Singapore Academy of Law, chaired by Justice Judith Prakash. The second, which is a later Report and which referred to the first Report, is a Report of the Committee to Review and Update the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and the Subordinate Courts Act, chaired by Justice of Appeal Chao Hick Tin. Sir, prior to the writing of the second Report, the Committee had, over a one-month period, invited and received suggestions and views from members of the legal fraternity, including the Civil Practice Committee of the Law Society of Singapore.

Sir, this Bill contains two key changes. First, it streamlines appeals to the Court of Appeal arising from interlocutory applications. Second, it expands the types of hearings which a two-judge Court of Appeal can hear. The Bill also contains a number of technical amendments which improve and clarify the litigation process.

Let me now elaborate on these amendments.

Streamlining of interlocutory appeals

The streamlining of appeals to the Court of Appeal arising from interlocutory

applications is found in clause 9 of the Bill. Between the time when a party files a civil case in court and when the case is heard, lawyers may file what are known as "interlocutory applications" in court. These applications deal with procedural matters that prepare the case for the hearing; for example, requesting the court to order the other party to furnish information or documents that are relevant to the hearing. Currently, for a case heard in the High Court, these interlocutory applications are usually heard by a High Court Registrar. A party can appeal to the High Court against the Registrar’s decision. The High Court Judge would then re-hear the application afresh. Orders made by the High Court, in most instances, can be further appealed to the Court of Appeal. Hence, interlocutory applications may go through three tiers of hearing, effectively becoming a two-tier appeal system. This is more than what the substantive action in the civil suit will enjoy, that is, only one tier of appeal as of right.

Given that interlocutory applications involve procedural points that usually do not affect the substantive rights of the parties and are not likely to involve novel points of law, it is an unproductive use of resources for all such applications to go up to the Court of Appeal, especially when the High Court already serves as one level of appeal against the Registrar who first hears the application.

Clause 9 therefore amends section 34 to streamline and restrict appeals to the Court of Appeal on interlocutory matters. Interlocutory applications will now be categorised based on their importance to the substantive outcome of the case. With this calibrated approach, some interlocutory orders will not be allowed to go to the Court of Appeal, whilst others can only go to the Court of Appeal with the permission of the High Court. The

decision of the High Court whether to grant permission is final. The right to appeal all the way to the Court of Appeal will, however, remain for interlocutory applications that could affect the final outcome of the case. The types of orders in the three categories are set out in the Fourth and Fifth Schedules to the Bill.

Clause 4 contains similar restrictions for certain types of interlocutory orders made in connection with a case that is heard in the Subordinate Courts. These interlocutory orders originate from a Subordinate Courts Registrar and enjoy one level of appeal to a District Judge. The decision of the District Judge may be further appealed to the High Court. The amendment to section 21 sets out a narrow list of interlocutory orders, which may have little bearing on the outcome of the case from being appealed to the High Court. These are set out in the Third Schedule to the Bill.

Decision of High Court Judge in leave application is final

Sir, as I had said earlier, under this new regime, all applications to appeal to the Court of Appeal on interlocutory matters will need leave of a High Court Judge whose decision is final. This will also apply to the substantive action in a civil suit that is commenced in the Subordinate Courts. These cases generally enjoy one tier of appeal to the High Court as of right. A claimant who wishes to bring the case further to the Court of Appeal will need the permission of the High Court. Under clause 9(e), the decision of the High Court judge whether to grant permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is final and the claimant will not be able to make a further leave application to the Court of Appeal.

Expanding powers of two-judge Court of Appeal for civil matters

Next, let me deal with the amendments that expand the types of applications that

can be heard by a two-Judge Court of Appeal. Applications filed before the Court of Appeal are generally fixed for hearing before the full Court of Appeal, comprising three Judges. Certain applications of an incidental nature (such as appeals from interlocutory orders) may, however, be heard before a two-Judge Court of Appeal.

To make better use of limited judicial resources, clause 8 amends section 30 to expand the types of applications that can be heard before a two-judge Court of Appeal to include other non-substantive matters which must presently be heard by a three-judge Court of Appeal. These include applications to vary incidental directions made for the conduct of a case and hearing an appeal against orders for the assessment of damages.

Sir, other amendments in the Bill seek to update the Act in light of current case law and to lend further clarity to the litigation process.

Currently, a party does not require leave of court to file an appeal to the High Court or the Court of Appeal, as the case may be, if the "amount in dispute or value of the subject-matter" exceeds $50,000 for appeals to the High Court; or $250,000 for appeals to the Court of Appeal. Clauses 4(a) and 9(c) amend section 21 and section 34(2)(a) to clarify that the computation of this monetary threshold does not include interest or costs ordered by the court. The amendment also puts it beyond doubt that the respective monetary thresholds of the High Court and Court of Appeal is computed by reference to the original amount claimed in the lower court and not the judgment sum awarded by the court, or the amount in dispute on appeal. This is consistent with recent Court of Appeal decisions.

Next, I will deal with the amendments to the supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court.

Litigants whose cases before the Subordinate Courts have already been heard and determined on appeal by the High Court have on occasion tried to re-open their cases by asking the High Court to exercise its supervisory or revisionary jurisdiction. The High Court has ruled that, as each High Court has coordinate jurisdiction, one High Court cannot exercise revisionary or supervisory jurisdiction over another High Court. Accordingly, whilst the High Court has revisionary powers over all Subordinate Courts, such powers do not apply to a decision of the Subordinate Courts which had already been upheld on appeal to the High Court.

To reflect this position, clause 6 amends section 27 to clarify that the High Court, when deciding whether to exercise its supervisory or revisionary jurisdiction in relation to any matter from a Subordinate Court which has already been heard on appeal by the High Court, should consider whether that matter was, or could reasonably have been, raised in that earlier appeal. This approach addresses the High Court’s concerns that litigants may be seeking to use the revisionary or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court to have a "second bite of the cherry". At the same time, it ensures that the Court has sufficient flexibility to exercise jurisdiction over a case, which has been disposed off at an earlier appeal, if, for example, the circumstances are such that the specific matter was not or could not reasonably have been raised at the earlier appeal.

Next, clause 7 adds a new section 28(B) to make changes to an aspect of the litigation process commonly referred to by lawyers as "Further Arguments".

Currently, a litigant must first apply to the High Court to make "Further Arguments" before he can file an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Failure to do so within the stipulated time frame could prevent the litigant from subsequently filing an appeal to the Court of Appeal. This amendment removes this technical requirement by making the need to file such "Further Arguments" voluntary. Next, clause 11 amends section 74(2) to clarify that the power of the High Court to restrain litigants from instituting vexatious proceedings applies to both civil and criminal proceedings originating at both the High Court and Subordinate Courts. This amendment codifies existing case law.

Finally, I will deal with the amendments contained in cause 12 which repeals and re-enacts section 75 to bring in-line with its mirror provision in the Subordinate Courts Act which will be similarly amended by the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill which I will deal with later. These amendments enable the Chief Justice to give approval to the Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar, who are currently disqualified from doing so, to hold any other office of emolument. The section also makes clear that they may be appointed to sit on judicial tribunals established outside of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and Subordinate Courts Act, such as the Military Court of Appeal and the Industrial Arbitration Court.

I propose to take the break now. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.10 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.50 pm until 4.10 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.10 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the effect of this Bill is to restrict the right to bring appeals in civil cases to the High Court and the Court of Appeal. As this would have negative consequences on litigants as well as the legal system as a whole, I do not support the Bill.

First, Sir, let me deal with the issues concerning appeals from the Subordinate Courts to the High Court. Clause 4 of the Bill seeks to re-enact section 21 of the Act, which restricts appeals from the Subordinate Courts to the High Courts. The current position under section 21 is that where a Magistrate or a District Judge has made a decision in a case, where the amount involved is where $50,000 or less, the losing party is not able to appeal at all, unless he gets permission to appeal from the Courts. This applies not only to the interlocutory orders, but also to final judgment, where a first appeal against a Magistrates' Court's judgment in Open Court must go to the High Court. In other words, an aggrieved party is stuck with the final judgment of the Magistrate or District Judge and does not have an automatic right of even one appeal. Though the Courts can give permission to appeal, such leave is not given easily. Case law has established that the person seeking to appeal needs to satisfy a high burden to show that an error of law has been made, or that the question of law is to be decided for the first time or that is of general public importance to have a higher Court ruling. Many applications for leave to appeal to the High Court have been turned down.

Sir, to have a system where parties cannot even appeal at least once against a final judgment, offends one's sense of justice. Judicial officers are human and fallible, and so are the parties and their counsels. Courts can make wrong decisions due to various factors, such as lack of time, urgency, or simply human failings. Just because the amount at stake is $50,000 or less does not make the case less important. Businesses could fold, individuals made bankrupt for much smaller sums. Sir, this controversy is not new and was hotly debated in 1998 when this amendment was first moved. Despite concerns raised by many MPs and objections from the Workers' Party at that time, it was passed. As clause 4 of this Bill seeks to re-enact section 21, to reconfirm this position, I am unable to support it.

Next, Sir, I will move to appeals to the Courts of Appeal. Clause 9 of the Bill further restrictions appeals to the Court of Appeal on interlocutory matters, meaning matters which the Court can settle before the final trial or hearing. There is a new Fourth Schedule which lists orders which cannot be appealed to the Court of Appeal at all, while the Fifth Schedule lists orders which can be appealed to the Court of Appeal only with leave or permission. It should be explained that interlocutory orders cover a wide range of steps taken at the pre-trial stages. While some steps may be relatively minor, others can have drastic consequences on the final outcome of the case. With this in mind, I shall explain further where the new Forth and Fifth Schedules are of grave concern to lawyers who gave me their views.

First, Sir, cases not appealable to the Court of Appeal at all. The Fourth Schedule sets out matters not appealable to the Court of Appeal at all. While some of these items under the Forth Schedule were in the existing section 34(1), there are several new matters now not to be appealable. Of particular concern are items (f) and (i). Item (f) deals with the

Judge's order, giving or refusing further and better particulars of pleadings. Item (i) deals with the Judge's order, giving or refusing interrogatories. To simplify, these two items deal with requests to force a party to provide more details of their case, failing which the case may be stalled or even struck off. Past cases have shown that such applications may be taken out tactically as a fishing expedition or even to oppress the other party. Onerous lists of questions may have to be answered. If a wrong decision is made by a High Court Judge to order particulars or interrogatories, is it right to let the matter be?

Next, Sir, cases appealable to the Court of Appeal only with leave. Besides the Fourth Schedule of non-appealable matters, the Fifth Schedule will require most interlocutory appeals to the Court of Appeal to be made only with leave. Sir, first let me touch on the problems of getting leave of Court. The first change relates to getting leave itself.

By clause 9(b), leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal will now be obtainable only from the High Court. It will change the current position where if the High Court turns down an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, it is still possible to apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal. Now, once the High Court Judge turns down an application for leave to appeal, that decision is final.

Based on the existing practice, this change would mean that a party unhappy with a High Court Judge's decision is channelled back to that same High Court Judge to ask for permission to appeal against his decision. This is tantamount to expecting the Judge to make an order, and yet give leave to appeal his own order. With due respect, the Judge making the order may not be the most neutral person to decide whether his own decision should be appealed against. The Bill severely compounds this problem by removing the Court of Appeal as a further forum to seek leave to appeal. The litigant

will now be left at the mercy of the Judge who made the order he is unhappy about.

Sir, the removal of the Court of Appeal as a forum to seek leave from is also not consistent with the regime for leave of appeal to the High Court from the Subordinate Courts. There, the prospective appellant can seek leave from either the Subordinate Courts Judge or, failing that, the High Court.

Secondly, Sir, the principles for the grant of leave are very restrictive. One has to show that there is a general question of law to be decided for the first time that the Court of Appeal's decision on the question will be to the public's advantage, or convince the High Court Judge that he himself has made an error. This is a high burden.

If the Government insists on having a leave system, the difficulties can be somewhat mitigated if some alternatives are considered. First, the Judge hearing the application for leave to appeal should not be the one who gave the order in the first place. Secondly, the Judge hearing the application for leave should ideally be a Judge of Appeal that is from the Court of Appeal. Thirdly, there should be law reform on the principles of granting leave to make it less onerous to meet the threshold for getting leave.

Next, Sir, I will talk on the wider net of excluded appeals. The proposed Fifth Schedule lists cases appealable to the Court of Appeal only with leave. Of particular significance is the new item (e), which states that most interlocutory orders will now be appealable only with leave. This is a significant departure from the existing law, where an interlocutory order is generally appealable to the Court of Appeal.

Interlocutory applications are wide-ranging and some have drastic consequences. Take, for example, an order

for an interlocutory injunction, which is basically an order to one party to do something or refrain from doing something until the trial. This could include a freezing of assets, a prohibition on share transfer or a hand-over of properties. Such orders remain in force till the trial, with possible irreversible consequences on the parties.

Another example is item (c) – an order refusing to allow discovery and inspection of documents. These documents could be pivotal to a proper assessment of evidence before trial. For instance, the appearance of an incriminating letter could result in a quick settlement or discontinuance, leading to a more efficient use of both public and private resources.

Sir, feedback from lawyers I consulted is that the Fourth and Fifth Schedules should be reviewed. The Government should at least put the Bill before a Select Committee so that lawyers and the public can come and give evidence on their experiences and its implications. If the Government is willing to do this, an acceptable Bill may result.

Sir, next, I would like to touch on why the Court of Appeal is still vital for interlocutory appeals. First of all, the Court of Appeal is still the first layer of appeal for some interlocutory applications. There were interlocutory applications which are not heard by the Registrar in the first instance but by a High Court Judge. This can be based on the nature of the application. For example, for Mareva injunctions to freeze assets or for search orders, only a Judge can hear the application in the first instance. At other times, I am told that the court management system may require a particular case being managed by a particular Judge under "a docket system" – meaning that all applications in that case, however minor, will be handled by that Judge. In such instances, the Judge will now become the single judicial authority on the

interlocutory applications. Such a single-tier system is clearly not sound.

Next, Sir, the Court of Appeal reverses or varies interlocutory orders of the High Court regularly. Sir, the records would show that time and again, the Court of Appeal has reversed, or varied, orders made by High Court Judges on interlocutory appeals. This would mean that in the view of the Court of Appeal, errors had been made by the High Court Judges.

The value of the Court of Appeal's input was endorsed by the Chief Justice in his foreword to the Supreme Court Annual Report 2009. There, the Chief Justice noted that the current practice of the Court of Appeal was that it was, and I quote, "prepared to hear any relevant argument, even novel and innovative ones, that counsel may choose to raise. Indeed, in appropriate cases, the Court of Appeal even proactively raises legal points which counsel may have missed". To shut out the CA's input will thus come at a cost to the quality of justice.

Sir, next, interlocutory decisions do affect the outcome in a majority of cases. Sir, it will be useful to know what percentage of cases filed in Court terminate without going to the final trial or hearing. It is likely that only a small proportion of cases go through the full course of trial.

Parties constantly assess their options along the way, based on costs as well as decisions or comments made by Judges on their interlocutory applications. The correctness of interlocutory decisions is therefore not a minor matter and affects the final outcome.

Next, loss of jurisprudence. One impact of removing the Court of Appeal from most interlocutory appeals is a consequence at the macro level to jeopardise the development of legal principles to guide lawyers and the public.

Once appeals to the Court of Appeal are taken away or drastically reduced, the High Court Judges will have no need to write their grounds of decision. The Court of Appeal will have fewer opportunities to rule or clarify how legal principles or rules should be read and applied. Fewer Court of Appeal decisions mean fewer binding precedents to guide the lower courts and lawyers.

Sir, the loss of jurisprudence will be a cost to the Singapore legal system and could potentially lead to confusion and frustration in future cases. This cannot be good for uniformity and consistency.

Sir, in summary, I do not support clause 4 of the Bill which re-enacts section 21 to limit appeals from the Subordinate Courts where the amount involved is not more than $50,000. I also do not support the changes by clause 9 to cut off the Court of Appeal from the hierarchy of most interlocutory applications. I believe these provisions of the Bill will weaken the rigour of our justice process and are not good for the quality of justice.

Sir, finally, I would like to ask for clarification concerning clause 12 of the Bill. Under clause 12, the Chief Justice will be empowered to allow the Supreme Court Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrars to "carry on any business directly or indirectly". Would the Senior Minister of State clarify why there is a need for this provision and how the Courts will ensure that there is no conflict of interests when such cases are heard?

Mr Speaker, I just listened to the speech of the Non-Constituency Member and I would like to clarify a couple of things she said. First, she makes a point that she disagrees with items (f) and (i) of the Fourth Schedule – these are matters relating to no appeals on further and better particulars and for no appeals from an order giving or refusing interrogatories – and implying

that this application is just heard once before the Judge and, therefore, by denying leave to appeal or denying appeal, no justice will be done. Is the Member not aware that such applications are typically heard by Registrar first before it goes to a Judge. So, there is one appeal.

The second clarification is this: she says or she implies that where a Mareva order is made by a Judge, the right of appeal is now being circumscribed or taken away. Could she clarify which part of the Bill that particular provision appears because I do not appear to see it?

Sir, thank you. I like to thank the Member for his queries. Sir, first, regarding his point about items (f) and (i): yes, it is true that those items are actually heard by the Registrar in the first instance. But I think he did not listen carefully to my entire speech which talks about the value of the Court of Appeal in interlocutory applications generally and there were a few points made by me. One is in relation to the fact that the Court of Appeal, on the record, will be seen to have regularly reversed or varied High Court orders, meaning that wrong orders have been given. Whether it is originating from the Registrar or a High Court Judge, the Court of Appeal records will show that.

Secondly was the question of jurisprudence and guidance to the lower courts, among other points.

In relation to his question on the Mareva injunction, if he looks at the Fifth Schedule of the Bill, he will realise that there is a catch-all provision in item (e), that from now on or when the Bill is passed and effective, any interlocutory order made by a High Court Judge is only going to be appealable with leave. So, therefore, Mareva injunctions do come under the category of interlocutory orders.

I think the Senior Minister of State will confirm that.

First, I want to thank both Mr Hri Kumar and Ms Sylvia Lim for speaking up, and for the clarification that Mr Hri Kumar has made. I will respond to Ms Lim's point about the injunction later.

Before I go into the specific points, I think I should make a general point – a reiteration of what I have said earlier on – which is that despite Ms Lim's criticism of some aspects of these amendments. I think the point to note is that these amendments were initiated by the Courts and put together by two Committees over a period of time, on which also sat very senior members of the Bar who are in practice. So, in fact, there were two Committees and it is the combined effect of these Committees that have resulted in these amendments. And, indeed, like I have said earlier on, the Law Society also put in its input with respect to amendments to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.

Ms Lim does not agree with clause 4 of the Bill, which essentially retains the current section 21. Basically, she disagrees with the rule which requires a person wishing to appeal a Subordinate Court's decision on a matter below $50,000 to obtain the leave of the Subordinate Court or the High Court before doing so. Sir, it is not the clause 4 itself that she is objecting to because clause 4 really clarifies that interests and costs should be excluded when computing the amount in dispute or value of such matter for the purposes of the monetary limit. Rather, she is objecting to a long-standing and essential feature of our legal system. And, as she has said, actually this point is not new. I think she is reiterating it because that is the position that the Workers' Party has taken. And we have debated this point before, which is that the principle that leave to appeal is

required coupled with the monetary threshold has always been there in our statute books since as long ago as 1955.

In 1998, this monetary threshold was set or raised to $50,000 because of a need to discourage non-serious appeals to the High Court. So, this is the thing to note. Senior Minister Jayakumar actually took pains to explain then that the requirement for leave to appeal is essentially a screening mechanism to sift out non-serious and unmeritorious appeals. Now, appeals can still be brought to the High Court with leave of Court in cases falling below this current limit of $50,000. Above that, for the Magistrates Court $50,000 to $60,000, the case can be appealed as of right to the High Court. So, we are talking really about smaller claims of $50,000. It is not that there is no appeal process but there is a need to get the leave of Court.

Now, it is worth noting that application for leave of Court is not limited to the Subordinate Courts. If the Subordinate Courts, in the first instance, refuse to grant leave, the litigant is entitled to further seek leave from the High Court. In fact, there are two bites of the cherry to secure this leave.

Now, in fact, one of the Committees that proposed these amendments saw it fit to recommend that the threshold be raised to $60,000 from its current $50,000. But this would mean that it would be congruent with the monetary jurisdiction of the Subordinate Courts, which will mean that all matters originating from the Subordinate Courts would not have been appealable as a matter of right to the High Court. Well, we did not take up this amendment, thus, preserving the limit at $50,000.

Another general point would be on the issue of number of appeals or tiers of appeal. Again, this is an old issue that has been debated quite a few times in this

House before. I think I just want to make the general point. This point has been made many times in this House before, that is, it is not necessarily true that having more tiers of appeal will lead to better administration of justice or to justice being better served.

What matters most is the quality of the judges handling the cases both at first instance and on appeal. On this, the quality of our judges at both Supreme Court and Subordinate Court levels has improved over the years. Indeed, lawyers who are arguing appeals also play a role by presenting full and developed arguments to help the judges come to a considered decision. We must also bear in mind that having more tiers of appeal will lead to greater uncertainty and anxiety for the parties, and definitely more costs for the parties.

Ms Lim then raises a variety of objections with clause 9 which amends section 34 of the Act. First, she says the amendment restricts appeals to the Court of Appeal. She also argues that the Fourth and Fifth Schedules deserve greater scrutiny, saying that some interlocutary orders have drastic consequences and are worthy of appeal.

Let me address her objections, first by pointing out that the right of appeal for substantive matters heard at first instance by the High Court remains unchanged. There is a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. What we are really talking about today are appeals relating to interlocutory applications, and these are applications which usually involve routine and uncontroversial points of law. As explained in my speech earlier on, as things currently stand, these interlocutory applications currently enjoy up to two tiers of appeal. So, first if it is the High Court, the registrar hears it; then there is a right of appeal to the High Court and then a further right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. Now, this is one more than the substantive suit which logically should not be the case. This is not just because the

great majority of interlocutory applications involve procedural points that do not affect the substantive rights of the parties but also because it may sometimes be possible for parties to still re-visit these interlocutory issues when the action reaches actual trial.

Now, as Ms Lim herself points out, there are certain interlocutory applications which may potentially affect the substantive outcome of the trial. But this is precisely why the present amendments categorise interlocutory applications into three groups which are carefully differentiated based on their importance to the substantive outcome of the case. Those that are non-appealable and they are really based on the existing section 34 – slightly expanded but still there is a precedent for that – and those which will be appealable as of right and, like I said, these are the interlocutory applications that will substantially affect the outcome of the case. So that remains, appeals to the Court of Appeal from the High Court as a matter of right, and the middle category, which is the norm, is appealable to the Court of Appeal, but with the leave of the High Court. I think we have to see this matrix in context and we are dealing with interlocutory applications which usually do not involve novel points of law or important points of law.

Let me illustrate with an example, in the case where a party applies to strike out his opponent's claim and fails. If he is dissatisfied with the Registrar's decision, he can appeal to High Court Judge who hears the application afresh as if it came before him for the first time. So, a lot of pain is taken by the High Court Judge to hear this appeal as though it was de novo, or hearing for the first time. But if the High Court Judge refuses to strike out the claim, this decision will no longer be appealable as of right to the Court of Appeal. This is because the effect of such

a decision is that the claim will proceed to trial as it ordinarily would. The substantive rights of the parties are not affected because the case will go on to trial. On the other hand, if the judge agrees to strike out the claim, then the applicant can file a further appeal to the Court of Appeal as of right. This is because the decision means that the case can no longer proceed to trial and it would clearly put an end to the party's substantive rights. Now, Sir, I take some pains to cite this example to show that much thought has gone into categorising the types of interlocutory applications that are non-appealable, appealable with leave, and appealable as of right. In any case, the categorisation is not cast in stone but can be amended if the need arises in the future.

Now, it should be pointed out that the default position is that all interlocutory applications are appealable to the Court of Appeal with leave. It is those interlocutory applications which clearly do not affect the conduct of the trial that have been placed in the no-right-to-appeal category which is contained in the Fourth Schedule. Another example of such an application is interrogatories – I think Ms Lim mentions that – which is really in the nature of questions that should the interrogatories be denied at the interlocutory stage, they can still be put to the witness during examination at trial. So, here again, it does not affect the substantive outcome of the trial. There is no blockage as such as the process is there in our procedures for these questions to be answered at trial. As Mr Hri Kumar has mentioned, it should be noted that in the great majority of these interlocutory applications, parties already enjoy one tier of appeal as of right to High Court Judge. So, in other words – I think one of the benefits that Ms Lim has

mentioned is that interlocutories can help the parties to come to a settlement before going to trail – the process is still there. That is the point we have to note. The process of interlocutory application at the High Court commencing with the Registrar is still there; and if the parties are not happy with the decision of the Registrar, they still have an appeal as of right to the High Court. They would then be able to convince the High Court why they should succeed. I think Ms Lim also makes a point about the role of the Court of Appeal in having a say. Again, I must go back to the basic matrix. It is not as though there are no interlocutory applications that are going to the Court of Appeal. In fact, there are some that will go there as a matter of course, as of right. These include, for example, an order made to stay proceedings; where amendment of pleadings is sought to add course of action after limitation period and of nature in Order 20, Rule 5, Sub-Rule 3, Sub-Rule 4 and Sub-Rule 5; orders striking of action, claim or defence, it is appealable as of right; orders granting summary judgment; orders refusing to set aside default judgment; and orders dismissing an action. So, in other words, you have a wide range of interlocutory applications where the Court of Appeal can still play a role. Moreover in the middle category, interlocutories can still go to the Court of Appeal provided leave is granted.

It is a relatively narrow band of interlocutories that are non-appealable – based on existing section 34(1) – I think Ms Lim also mentions that. It is not an entirely new approach because under the current section 34(1) and (2), there are already some interlocutories that do not go to the Court of Appeal and others that can only go with leave.

She is correct in that a small number of applications – she mentions injunctions – which are determined in the first

instance by a High Court Judge, not the Registrar. However, in such a situation, a differentiated approach should still apply since the basis for deciding whether the application is appealable or not and need for leave to do so depends on the nature of the application, not the forum before which it was first heard. Hence, even the nature of the injunction sought is differentiated. If the application for injunction is for final relief sought and part of an Order 14, which has serious consequences, it is appealable as of right to the Court of Appeal. Indeed under the existing section 34, no distinction is made between an interlocutory application that is first heard by a Registrar and one that is first heard by the High Court Judge. We will not adopt a differentiated approach with regard to this but look at the nature of the application itself. In fact, the Committee considered this point carefully and decided to retain this approach.

Sir, in summary on this point, I would say that this tiered approach which is carefully put together – considering where each interlocutory application should go to in terms of the box – strikes the desired balance between maximising the use of the Court of Appeal's limited resources so that it can focus on substantive cases that help shape legal jurisprudence and, at the same time, allowing it to continue to shape our jurisprudence in the area of interlocutory applications. This is because it will still hear some applications as a matter of course, as of right, and others with a leave of the High Court. So that is one balancing point. It also ensures that critical issues raised at an interlocutory stage will continue to receive the attention of a highest Appellate Court. It is for this reason that many other jurisdictions – the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada – have similar restrictions on appeals from interlocutory orders. The next concern that Ms Lim raises is the fact that now the High Court Judge

becomes the final gatekeeper for all leave applications. First of all, I think it is important to put this amendment in its proper perspective and to bear in mind that the requirement to apply for leave to appeal usually applies only to the second tier of appeals, that is, the Court of Appeal. As I mentioned earlier, the majority of interlocutory applications are fixed before an Assistant Registrar and, as Mr Hri Kumar has reminded us, would enjoy one tier of appeal to the High Court Judge. Similarly, in a substantive case, cases which are commenced in the High Court can be appealed to the Court of Appeal as of right. Those that require leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal are those which commenced in the Subordinate Courts and, for these cases, they would already have enjoyed a one-tier of appeal to the High Court either as of right, if the amount is more than $50,000; or with leave of, first, the court hearing a case, say, of $40,000, whether it is Magistrates' or District Court; and if leave is turned down, a second bite of the cherry – asking the High Court for leave. I would suggest that – even though Ms Lim does speak strongly about it – the impact of the amendment may not be such a big one.

Now, on the threshold for granting leave to appeal: I think Ms Lim also made that point. The legal principles which govern an application for leave are tried and established. Similar principles exist in other Commonwealth jurisdictions such as the UK. It is not true that they are too restrictive. On the contrary, these leave principles developed by the Courts act as suitable filtering mechanism for interlocutory appeals. For example, should a discovery application concerns novel points of law that warrants being determined by the Court of Appeal, a party who applies these principles can expect that his application for leave will succeed. I do not think there is a need for

law reform in this area as Ms Lim suggests but leave it like in other jurisdictions for case law to continue to evolve.

Next, Ms Lim argues that requiring a litigant to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from the same High Court Judge who made the Order from which the party's wish to appeal is bad, especially when the High Court Judge's decision will now be final.

Sir, first of all, I should say that the amendments do not introduce a new practice because this practice already exists – getting leave from the High Court Judge who hears the case. Indeed, I understand, this is also the practice in other countries, such as the UK. I think the key point really is that we must expect our High Court Judges who are men and women of experience and integrity to grant leave when it is justified. And, in fact, the High Court Judge who gave the original order and who is the one most familiar with the case is best placed to make this call as to whether the facts of legal issues raised merit further consideration by the Court of Appeal. Her suggestion as to whether a Judge of Appeal, as a single judge, should hear the case just to see whether leave should be granted – as I have said, we have four Judges of Appeal in the Court of Appeal, which is really shaping our jurisprudence in substantive areas. I am not sure we want a single Judge of Appeal to sit there and examine the entire proceedings and all the issues of law just to see whether leave should be granted. I think the issue also arises with respect to another High Court Judge because that other High Court Judge will still have to go through the entire proceedings and see whether leave should be granted. Essentially, the point to note is we must trust our High Court Judges that they are not personal about it; that he makes a professional decision based on established principles

whether or not leave should be granted for an appeal to be made against his own decision.

We must remember that contentious applications for leave and strenuous multiple appeals can be costly as some of the lawyers amongst us will know and mitigate against acccess to justice for those who cannot afford high litigation costs.

So, unless the matter at hand is substantive, we should not weigh litigation in favour of those who have more resources to drag issues out. In any case, let me assure Ms Lim that statistics bear out the fact that our High Court Judges do give leave to appeal against their own decisions, if warranted.

Finally, Sir, Ms Lim queries why an Assistant Registrar may now seek the approval of the Chief Justice to hold an office of emolument or to run a business. Let me assure Ms Lim that, first of all, as a matter of policy, there is absolutely no intention for judicial officers who hold full-time appointments, as Magistrates or District Judges or as a Registrar, Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar in the High Court, to hold any other concurrent jobs or to carry on business. As I explained in my speech, section 75 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and section 64 of the Subordinate Courts Act are really mirror provisions. An amendment to the SCJA is for the purpose of maintaining a consistent approach across both Acts in relation to judicial officers. Both section 64 of the Subordinate Courts Act and its mirror provision in section 75 of the SCJA have always been intended to apply to full-time officers. The amendments to section 64 aim to clarify the ad hoc judges scheme in place in the Subordinate Courts. Under the scheme, academics or legal practitioners who are appointed as ad hoc judges to hear a specific case or for a term of a few months to hear assigned ad hoc cases are not required to give up their present jobs. That is why we have made

these amendments to put it beyond any doubt that they can continue to hold an office of emolument in their legal practice, for example, or to do business.

4.47 pm

Tapping talent outside the Courts judiciously, this scheme has added value to the administration of justice in Singapore. Indeed, other countries and the UK have similar schemes. Now, whilst the Supreme Court presently does not have a similar ad hoc judges scheme in place – it is the Assistant Registrars who are full-time Legal Service Officers who hear interlocutory applications in the Supreme Court – the amendment to section 75 gives flexibility to the Supreme Court to appoint ad hoc Assistant Registrars to hear such interlocutory applications, as have been done in the Subordinate Courts where ad hoc Deputy Registrars have been appointed to hear assigned ad hoc cases, should the Chief Justice consider such a scheme desirable in the future.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think I have answered all the points.

Thank you, Sir. A few clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. First, in his reply speech, Senior Minister of State mentioned that there were only a few categories of applications where the High Court Judge sits at the first instance hearing. But would he also confirm that besides those kinds of applications, there are also those other cases where the case is being managed by a particular Judge and, therefore, any kind of application, including the applications that Mr Hri Kumar mentioned earlier, interlocutories or further and better particulars, would still go before that particular Judge because it has been decided so by the case management system? So, we are actually talking about

quite a number of interlocutory applications heard by a Judge at the first instance and not Registrar.

The second point is, he mentioned that the statistics would show that High Court Judges have given leave to appeal against their own decisions. Would he also confirm that the statistics show refusal of leave as well by the High Court Judges to appeal against their own decisions?

The third point is, while Senior Minister of State appears to suggest that the interlocutory applications caught by the amendments are relatively minor, does he not agree that applications such as Mareva injunctions and search orders, are actually very, very consequential and, in fact, have been described by Judges in case law as nuclear weapons which can be used in litigation early? So, why is it that the Bill does not provide appeals as of right for these sorts of applications which are heard by a Judge anyway in the first instance?

The next clarification is: he mentioned that we do not really want to have too many appeals to the Court of Appeal because there are only four Judges of Appeal there and so on. But from my understanding of the procedures, there are already some, in the sense, disincentives to appeal by way of requiring security for costs of appeal. I think in order to appeal, you have to put down $15,000 to mount an interlocutory appeal. And the statistics show that the number of appeals before the Court of Appeal in 2009 was about maybe 200. Would the Senior Minister of State please comment on these points?

First of all, Ms Lim is right in that the possibility is there that if an application is made very close to the trial, it is a Judge who hears

the interlocutory application in the first instance. So that it is a possibility but, like I have said, not all cases happen this way. In fact, most of the interlocutory applications would be heard at an earlier stage and by the High Court Registrar.

The second point is: yes, there are instances where the High Court Judges have granted leave of appeal; there are also instances where they have turned down such applications. But the point to note is that in making the decision, it is made according to established principles and these principles are all there to be applied. So, we have to trust our High Court Judges to properly apply these principles.

Well, of course, we can argue till the cows come home which category an application should fall into but, like I have said, these proposals have been put together by a Committee headed by, for the first Report, a Judge of Appeal, Justice Chao Hick Tin, and the second Report – it was a smaller Committee that reported to the Singapore Academy of Law's Law Reform Committee headed by Justice Judith Prakash, and in each Committee there were senior practitioners. I would expect them to have very carefully looked at which interlocutories should go into which box and, in any case, like I have said, it is not cast in stone so that in the future, should Ms Lim be right, and some of these interlocutories should not be where they are, amendments can be made. I think we should let this scheme have an opportunity to run its course before we criticise it because it has been very carefully put together by people who are out there in practice.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Sir, I would like my dissenting vote recorded.

[Hon. Member Mr Low Thia Khiang stood up to indicate his dissent.]

So be it.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

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

Sir, I would like my dissenting vote recorded.

[Hon. Member Mr Low Thia Khiang raised his hand to indicate dissent.]

So be it.

Order for Second Reading read.

4.55 pm

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

Sir, as is the case for the amendments to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (SCJA), which I have just taken the House through, the last major review of the Subordinate Courts Act (SCA) was also in 1993. The amendments contained in this Bill also arose from the recommendations of the same two Reports which I had mentioned earlier.

Sir, the key amendment rationalises the civil jurisdiction of the Subordinate Courts. The remaining amendments are mainly housekeeping in nature, with some seeking to clarify existing judicial practice.

Sir, on the rationalisation of civil jurisdiction of the Subordinate Courts: currently, the Act limits the types of cases which the Subordinate Courts can

hear in two ways. First, by the value of the dispute which is $250,000 for the District Court and $60,000 for the Magistrates’ Court and, second, by the legal nature of the dispute.

With respect to the legal nature of the dispute, currently, the District Court and Magistrates’ Court can only hear claims in contract and tort – what lawyers call "common law actions" – and certain types of actions in equity. This means that the Subordinates Courts cannot hear restitution-type cases like money had and received, and equity-type actions like breach of fiduciary duties or actions for undue influence, even when the amount in dispute is within the Courts’ monetary limits. Sir, this is the case even though these types of actions are available in common law and equity. There are also limits to the types of remedies they can grant; for example, the Magistrates’ Court currently cannot grant injunctions.

Sir, these limits on the legal nature of the dispute create practical difficulties for litigants who are forced to go to the High Court when the actions can rightfully be commenced in the Subordinate Courts. It means higher costs for the litigants even though the value of their claim is within the Subordinate Courts’ monetary limits.

Moreover, there is no reason why the cases that the Subordinate Courts can hear should be limited by what are essentially only technical differences in the legal nature of the dispute. Hence, clauses 2 and 14 of the Bill amend sections 19 and 22 to allow the District Court and the Magistrates’ Court to hear all types of actions and remedies, subject only to their respective monetary limits. For the Magistrates’ Court, a further qualification is that the Magistrates’ Court will not have jurisdiction over claims which are exclusively non-monetary in nature such as a claim seeking delivery of goods.

Sir, with these amendments in place, a litigant who wishes to commence an action will no longer need to be concerned with the legal nature of his dispute when deciding in which Court – that is the High Court, District Court or Magistrates’ Court – to file his claim. Instead, the main determining factor would be the value of his claim. This is more straightforward and efficient.

Clause 14 also amends section 52 to give the Magistrates’ Court the power to grant injunctions, albeit not in cases involving exclusively non-monetary claims, and to award interest. We have also taken the opportunity to clarify that the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court, as with other civil courts, is established by service of process.

Next, there are three amendments which clarify certain aspects of judicial practice.

First, clauses 9, 12, 13 and 14 amend sections 31, 50, 51 and 52 to clarify that the District Court and Magistrates’ Court have the power, in both civil and criminal matters, to order persons who are party to proceedings to undergo medical examination if the physical or mental condition of that person is relevant to the proceedings.

Next, clause 15 carries the same amendments as clause 12 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill, namely to empower the Chief Justice to grant approval for judicial officers to hold other offices of emolument and to make it clear that judicial officers may be appointed to sit on judicial tribunals established outside of the SCJA and SCA, such as the Military Court of Appeal and the Industrial Arbitration Court. In the context of the Subordinate Courts, as I have explained previously, this amendment serves to clarify the recent practice of employing ad hoc judges who may be

practitioners or academics. Unlike judicial officers who hold their appointments on a full-time basis, these ad hoc judges are appointed for a fixed term or to hear specific cases.

And, finally, Sir, clause 16 clarifies that the current judicial immunity clause in the Subordinate Courts Act also covers a judicial officer conducting mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution. This amendment is added because a recent High Court decision held that a Court Dispute Resolution settlement judge does not exercise judicial power when he carries out mediatory functions, thus creating a lacuna in terms of the extent of immunity protection accorded to such a settlement judge. This amendment rectifies this.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.00 pm

Sir, I have a concern about the Bill and this relates to the wider powers given to the Magistrates and whether the qualifications of Magistrates should therefore be raised.

Sir, under the existing law, the Magistrate hears several cases where the subject matter is worth $60,000 or less. While this remains unchanged by the Bill, clause 14 provides that the Magistrates' Court will now have powers to make all orders which the High Court Judge can make. For instance, the new section 52(1B) provides that the Magistrates' Court can order injunctions and make binding declarations of rights, just as the High Court can. As the Senior Minister of State mentioned earlier, these are additional powers which the Magistrates' Court currently does not have. Granting such orders is not straightforward. For instance, an injunction is a court order to the defendant to do an act or not to do an act, which can have irreversible

consequences on the parties. In deciding whether or not to grant an injunction, the Court has to exercise discretion and take into consideration whether such a drastic order is necessary as opposed to simply ordering the defendant to pay a sum of money to the plaintiff. This change, Sir, comes on top of several changes in recent years to make the Magistrate’s role more onerous. For instance, in 1998, a controversial amendment was made to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to restrict appeals from the Subordinate Courts in cases which involved $50,000 or less. Such appeals would only be allowed if the Courts gave permission. This meant that most final judgments in the Magistrates' Court cases became un-appealable as of right, since a Magistrates' Court jurisdiction only extended to hearing cases worth up to $60,000. Sir, I spoke about this earlier under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill. A wrong decision thus runs the risk of remaining uncorrected, and injustice done. Since this policy of limited appeals is still in force, it is even more incumbent upon us to ensure that our Magistrates are of the necessary calibre and experience to make sound and confident decisions in the first instance. In addition, under the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code passed in May this year, the hearing and sentencing jurisdiction of Magistrates in criminal cases have also been increased. The Magistrates' Court’s jurisdiction is now to hear cases punishable with five years’ imprisonment, up from three years; and its sentencing power has also been increased from ordering two years’ jail to three years’ jail. The totality of the above changes is to make the role of Magistrates far more onerous. Given this greater responsibility, I believe it is time to consider raising the qualifying criteria to become a Magistrate. Under section 10 of the Subordinate Courts Act, a person is qualified to be a Magistrate so long as he

has been a qualified person for one year, meaning that one year has passed since he graduated from a recognised law school. This low threshold might have been appropriate in the past with their more limited role. With the developments since then, it is appropriate to re-consider the qualifying criteria to ensure that litigants have greater confidence in the system. Sir, in this regard, I cannot help but quote the observations of the Senior Minister of State himself who spoke in 1993 as a backbencher on this very issue. He noted that some Singaporeans were surprised that some of our Deputy Registrars and Magistrates were relatively young. And I quote:

"In these young hands lies the power to decide the commercial and personal fate of fellow Singaporeans. Dispensation of justice and application of the law do not take place in a vacuum but in the context of Singapore's social milieu. Not only is legal knowledge important but also wisdom that comes from experience in dealing with matters of the world." Would the Government look into this important issue?

I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for speaking on the Bill and for quoting me. Basically the core of her argument is that the minimum one year qualification for Magistrates should be raised in view of the increased responsibilities. It is true, sometimes words do come back to haunt us [Laughter ]. But happily not this time because just as I was convinced by the very convincing answer by the then Minister for Law in 1993, I hope that likewise Ms Lim's concerns will be assuaged by my response.

Now, the key point here to note, firstly, is that the one-year minimum qualification criterion is precisely that – a minimum requirement. A good analogy is

the appointment of High Court Judges where the minimum requirement is 10 years' experience. Yet, no one with only 10 years has ever been appointed as a High Court Judge. Similarly, the Subordinate Court's practice is to appoint persons with longer experience and good academic qualifications as Magistrates. Between 2007 and 2010, four legal service officers were posted to the Subordinate Courts and appointed as Magistrates. At the time of joining the Subordinate Courts, their average experience was 10 years, even though the minimum requirement is only one year; and more generally, currently the average age of the Subordinate Court's judicial officers is about 45 years. Of course, these are both District Judges and Magistrates. The most junior officer is 31 years old with eight years of experience. Sir, obviously, what I alluded to in my speech in 1993 about the younger Magistrates – I think they must all have grown up, or at least have been replaced by older Magistrates. This actually shows in the enhancement of the quality of the Subordinate Courts.

I am told that before a judicial officer is allowed to conduct a hearing on his own, he has to undergo an intensive interview by the Chief District Judge and a Senior District Judge to ensure that he is legally and professionally competent. The expertise of the judicial officers is further enhanced by ensuring that there is specialisation of work. Also, after their appointment as judicial officers, there is continuing judicial education which includes a structured in-house programme, overseas training as well as post-graduate studies for some. This ensures that our judicial officers including the Magistrates keep up to date with developments in law and procedures. I also understand that they have mentoring programmes in relation to communication and court craft skills. That the Subordinate Courts is committed to having a world-class bench is also evidenced by the fact that judicial

training in the Subordinate Courts has been institutionalised by the establishment of a Strategic Planning and Training Division; and indeed this is one reason why our Subordinate Courts continue to blaze the trail internationally signified by participation, for example, with several reputed international agencies in formulating an international framework for court excellence – this was in the papers recently – launched here in Singapore at the Asia-Pacific Courts Conference by the Chief Justice. Members, who are in practice, I am sure, know of and probably refer to, the many books written by our Subordinate Court Judges on civil procedure, family law, sentencing practice and assessment of damages. I say this to assure Ms Lim that, indeed she is right – the responsibilities of a Magistrate have increasingly gone up over the years – whilst the minimum requirement is one year in practice, much more experienced people are appointed. Also, it is not just a matter of appointment, because when they become judicial officers in Sub-Courts, there is continuing education to equip them to be good judicial officers.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

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

Resolved,

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

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven

Minutes past Five o'clock pm

to a date to be fixed.

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

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry when will the review of the extension of Singapore's Formula One races be completed; (b) what are the implications for the economy; and (c) what have been the tangible benefits derived from the staging of the night races.

Since 2008, Singapore has successfully hosted three Formula One (F1) night races. The first two races in 2008 and 2009 brought in a total of more than $260 million of tourism receipts, attracted 70,000 international visitors constituting about 40% of race attendance, and were watched by a total of more than 195 million "live" television viewers worldwide.

The figures for Year 3 have not been finalised but preliminary estimates place this year's international visitorship at about 40,000, close to Year 1 levels. Overall, the event has helped to brand Singapore as a premier lifestyle destination to a global audience. The race has given Singapore good international exposure and it continues to enjoy strong support locally and internationally.

Beyond the headline figures, the event has also brought significant benefits to businesses and the local community. With the influx of international visitors, tourism-related businesses have benefitted from the F1. In particular, many hotels reported significantly higher occupancy rates of over 90% whilst charging a premium for rooms over the F1 weekend. The event also provided a networking platform for businesses with many taking up hospitality suites to host partners and clients at the race. This year, the Singapore Exchange organised a conference at the sidelines of the race to bring together potential investors in the Asian motorsports industry.

Within Singapore, the F1 has fuelled local interest in motorsports, creating opportunities for close to 1,000 local enthusiasts to serve as volunteer race marshalls. It also provided training opportunities for more than 1,000 ITE students who were subsequently deployed as street guides and event officials at the circuit park over the race weekend.

Singapore is currently contracted with the Formula One Administration (FOA) to host the F1 race until 2012. FOA has the option to offer an extension for an additional five years. In the event Singapore decides not to take up such an offer, we will have to serve notice with FOA to terminate the arrangement, with the last race to be held in 2014.

The decision to extend the contract arrangement beyond 2012 needs to be carefully studied. Our decision will be based on an assessment of the costs and benefits to the economy over the long term. These would include factors such as the projected attendance and overseas visitorship at future races, the impact on our tourism industry

and other sectors, its contribution to Singapore's international branding, and how F1 would continue to fit in with the ongoing renewal and transformation of our tourism landscape.

The Singapore Tourism Board will be studying this together with other Government agencies and the race promoter, Singapore Grand Prix Pte Ltd (SGP). Given the range of issues to be studied, the review exercise may take about a year to be completed. An announcement on the outcome will be made when ready.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Singaporeans and the many volunteers for their continued support for the F1. Our Government agencies and the race organisers will continue to work to further enhance Singapore's F1 night race which has gained the reputation of being one of the highlights on the F1 season calendar. We look forward to the continued support of Singaporeans and all stakeholders as we prepare to host the race in 2011.

asked the Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (a) what measures are in place to monitor local mail delivery time and ensure that it meets service levels; (b) if there have been more incidences of mail taking longer to reach their destinations; (c) what penalties Singapore Post is liable to if the service levels are not met and what have been imposed so far; and (d) if the recent late delivery of F1 tickets to YOG volunteers is due to slow processing by Singapore Post.

I thank the Member of Parliament for his interest in the postal delivery system and measures in place that safeguard postal delivery service levels. I would like to take this opportunity to provide a brief overview of the regulation of local mail delivery, the service levels we can expect and how they are safeguarded.

Singapore Post, or SingPost, is designated as the Public Postal Licensee, and is required to comply with Quality of Service (QoS) standards that the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA), has set out for the delivery of local ordinary mail. This is defined as basic letters that weigh up to 500g. For destinations within the Central Business District (CBD), the QoS standards require 99% of local ordinary mail, posted before stipulated collection times, to be delivered by the next working day, and 100% to be delivered by the second working day. For destinations outside the CBD, the delivery standard is 98% by the next working day, and 100% by the second working day. The stipulated collection times for Mondays to Thursdays are 7.00 pm for mail posted within the CBD, and 5.00 pm for mail posted outside the CBD. On Fridays, the collection times are extended by one hour, ie, 8.00 pm for mail posted within the CBD, and 6.00 pm for mail posted outside the CBD. There are also other QoS standards set out for the local processing of foreign ordinary mail. These QoS standards are measured monthly, and IDA requires SingPost to submit QoS reports every quarter to show its compliance. Members of the public can also view postal QoS information on IDA's website.

Postal operators who fail to comply with IDA's postal QoS standards would be liable for a financial penalty of either S$1,000 or S$5,000; depending on which QoS indicator was breached. To date, IDA has not imposed any financial penalty on SingPost as it has generally been able to exceed the postal QoS standards. For example, the QoS report for April-June this year showed that 99.5% of local mails were delivered to destinations within the CBD by the next working day, and 98.6% to destinations outside the CBD, exceeding IDA's requirement of 99% and 98% respectively.

As an additional check, IDA actively monitors the complaints relating to the postal delivery service. From IDA's experience, the number of public complaints concerning postal delivery incidents has been low compared to the total volume of ordinary mail delivered by SingPost. For example, from January to June this year, there were 17 complaints to IDA, SingPost and the media on late or lost ordinary mail. During the same period, SingPost delivered about 384.7 million ordinary mail items. Nevertheless, IDA continues to work with SingPost to provide better levels of service and to meet the public's postal needs.

With regard to the recent delayed delivery of F1 tickets to Youth Olympic Games (YOG) volunteers, SingPost had conducted an internal investigation into the matter. We understand that envelopes containing the complimentary tickets for the YOG volunteers were hand-delivered to the SingPost office in two batches, on 21st and 22nd September. The tickets eventually reached the intended recipients on 23rd, 24th and, after the F1 race, on 27th September.

SingPost's investigations revealed that the second batch of tickets reached SingPost after the 5.00 pm collection time on Wednesday, 22nd September, and was treated as the next day's mail, which was Thursday's. SingPost also found that some of the mail items had to be repackaged and manually sorted because the packaging had became unsealed, and were of non-standard mail size, which could not be put through the automatic processing machine. Such manual handling would have reduced the prompt handling, postmarking and sorting of mail. Regrettably, some of the mail was only delivered on 27th September, after the F1 races, even though SingPost's delivery of Thursday's mail on the following Monday is consistent with the QoS requirement of delivering mail by the second working day.

I understand that SingPost will work more closely with their customers to prevent recurrences, especially for important and urgent mail.

asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports what has been the impact of the Community Integration Fund so far.

The Community Integration Fund (CIF) was launched in September 2009. Its objective is to promote the social interaction of local born Singaporeans and new immigrants in order to promote better understanding and cohesion. Ten million dollars over three years was set aside for the CIF and relevant projects may receive up to 80% co-funding.

To date, the CIF has attracted a total of 96 proposals from over 60 organisations. Among these, 74 proposals with a committed funding of $1.65 million have been supported. The wide variety of projects brought together organisations from the people, public and private (3P) sectors with a common interest in integration, and provided platforms for over 170,000 locals and non-locals to interact, make new friends, and collectively appreciate Singapore's unique multi-racial, multi-religious and cosmopolitan nature.

For example, in April 2010, the Indian Women's Association (IWA), collaborated with the People's Association (PA) Women's Integration Network Council to organise a multi-racial and multi-cultural fun fair for families. Activities included cultural performances such as lion dance, Indian dances, folk music and Malay line dance and a saree parade involving participants of different ethnicities and nationalities. The collaboration between the two organisations – an immigrant association and a local grassroots organisation – helped to facilitate cross cultural interaction and deepen understanding amongst their members.

We hope that partnerships formed will have long-term impact. For example, the ties formed between Bukit Timah Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCC) and the Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) Alumni Association started off with an invitation from the IIT Alumni Association to other local and immigrant organisations, including the Bukit Timah CCC, to share in their Diwali celebrations. This had since blossomed into a long-term partnership cultivated based on common interests. They now come together regularly to co-organise events for their members.

Local umbrella organisations are also playing their role to rally the community to support integration. The Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations, for example, had organised a networking dinner to bring together leaders of Chinese new immigrant associations and local Chinese clans to network, build familiarity and to encourage future collaborations. This inaugural effort has a chain effect and has since led to more instances of local clan associations working with new immigrant associations such as Tian Fu Club and Hua Yuan Association.

These are only some examples of projects supported by the CIF. There are many more. It has been a year since the launch of the CIF, and the National Integration Council will conduct a comprehensive review of the CIF to further fine-tune the fund. In this review, we will pay particular attention to helping community organisations build up the capabilities to organise scalable and sustainable projects that promote integration.

asked the Minister for National Development in view of the surge in requests for Build-to-Order (BTO) flats (a) how many first-time flat buyers have applied for BTO flats at least three times but were unsuccessful; and (b) what are the reasons for their failure to get a flat.

In response to strong demand, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) increased the frequency of its BTO launches to once every month since October 2009. As a result, many applicants have been applying for multiple BTO exercises, and those who were unsuccessful have also increased. Nonetheless, for the BTO exercises in non-mature estates completed in the last one year, more than nine in 10 first-timers had a chance to select a flat within three tries.

Currently, there are about 1,300 first-timers who were not able to select a flat in non-mature estates after three attempts. They would be given two additional chances on their fourth attempt on top of their original two or four chances (if they are applying to live near or with their parents). With application rates for BTO exercises moderating from about six times earlier this year to slightly over two times in recent BTO exercises in August and September, first-timers will have higher chance to select a flat in their next application. If they are still unable to select a flat, HDB will offer them help if they have urgent housing needs. I have also asked HDB to look into further increasing the chances for those with multiple unsuccessful applications, and HDB will announce the details when they are ready.

HDB will spare no effort in meeting urgent housing needs. HDB has increased its supply of BTO flats to cater to the increased demand. This year, HDB has offered 12,600 BTO flats from January to September and 1,600 flats under the Sale of Balance Flat (SBF) Exercise in August. HDB will offer another 3,400 BTO flats in the last quarter of 2010 to bring the total new flat supply for 2010 to 17,600. HDB will also offer up to 22,000 new flats next year if demand is sustained. This will be further supplemented by the on-coming supply of Executive Condominiums and flats under the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS), to provide more choices for the higher-income buyers. HDB will continue to monitor the market demand and adjust its supply accordingly.

asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can allow existing tenants of rental flats whose co-tenants have passed away to retain their flats without having to find replacement co-tenants.

A low income, single person without any housing option may apply for a rental flat with another eligible single under the Joint Singles Scheme. As public rental flats are heavily subsidised and limited in number, HDB requires the pairing of two singles for a rental flat in order to help as many of the needy as possible. The pairing also enables co-tenants to provide care and support for each other.

For these reasons, HDB requires the remaining tenant of a public rental flat to include another eligible occupier upon the demise of the original co-tenant.

HDB will provide the remaining tenant sufficient time to find an eligible occupier. If the tenant has difficulty in doing so, HDB can assist to pair him with another single person so that he is able to continue to rent a subsidised rental flat.

We seek the Member's understanding that HDB needs to optimise the use of public rental flats to help as many needy persons as possible.

asked the Minister for Health in view of our rapidly ageing population (a) what further challenges and issues are faced in palliative care; and (b) what is being done to increase community support services in the end-of-life care sector.

End-of-life care is a delicate and complex issue. The challenges it throws up are many; addressing them is a preoccupation among healthcare providers in many societies. In Singapore, we have made a lot of progress, particularly in recent years and are now much better prepared. But much more still needs to be done.

Supply side constraints are real, in terms of availability of skilled resources. We are expanding capacity and raising capabilities through greater investment in this area. My Ministry is committed to this. I have shared our plans on this before in this House and I will not repeat them. At the end of the day, resource constraints are easier to fix.

More difficult to fix are attitudinal constraints: both of the patients, their family members, as well as of the doctors. Acknowledging the limits of medical science and human mortality is easier said than done, especially when it involves ourselves and our loved ones. Changing attitudes takes time and we should be patient. The key is greater dialogue, more sharing of experiences, raising awareness and empathy.

Within the healthcare sector, we are promoting advance care planning (ACP) to facilitate greater dialogue between patients, families and the healthcare professionals on end-of-life care and treatment decisions. The aim is to empower patients and families to participate in decision making and express their wishes for treatment and care preferences, through facilitated discussions. My Ministry is also working to reinforce ACP to doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals, through targeted training and awareness sessions.

We know that many terminally-ill patients prefer to spend their last days at home, in familiar surroundings accompanied by their loved ones. We should support these preferences as far as practicable by growing community support services for home palliative care.

This is not just in medical and nursing care, but also in psychosocial support. This is particularly important for patients with young children or complicated family relationships as it helps the surviving family members come to terms with the patient's impending passing. We are working to support the efforts of the hospice care community in providing this vital service. We are also working with the hospice community to have more day facilities to meet the care needs of these patients.

Some terminally ill patients end up in nursing homes. Tan Tock Seng Hospital and Dover Park Hospice have started a pilot programme to improve end-of-life care in nursing homes. As the outcomes are promising, we are expanding the programme progressively across more regions in Singapore.

asked the Minister for Transport (a) in each of the last three years, what is the number of accidents that involved heavy vehicles being driven past speed limits; (b) whether the Ministry will look into speed-limiting devices and enforcing even more stringent speed limits on these heavy vehicles; and (c) what has the Ministry done to prevent heavy vehicles (lorries and buses) from parking in private housing estates.

Sir, over the past three years, an average of 22 speed-related fatal and injury accidents involving heavy vehicles were reported to the Police a year.

The Member asked about more stringent speed limits for heavy vehicles. We have considered this carefully, but decided against it. This is because lowering the present speed limit for heavy vehicles will increase the speed differential between heavy vehicles and other vehicles travelling on the same roads which could in turn create more safety concerns – in general, a larger speed differential between different classes of vehicles could lead to higher incidences of vehicular interactions such as lane changing, braking and overtaking. Our focus should therefore be on ensuring that drivers of heavy vehicles drive safely within the prescribed speed limits.

A speed limiter regime was introduced by the Traffic Police in 1999 to curb speeding violations by heavy vehicles. As the regime has been in place for 10 years and the existing speed limiters are prone to tampering, the Traffic Police has explored the latest technologies available in the market with the intent to enhance the present speed limiter regime. Last year, Traffic Police conducted a three-month trial to test the effectiveness of a Global Positioning System (GPS) based system to enhance the present speed limiter regime for heavy vehicles. The enhanced system consists of a front-end tracking device installed in the vehicles and has the ability to detect tampering via a back-end monitoring system. The enhanced speed limiter regime for heavy vehicles will be introduced by the Traffic Police in due course.

The parking of heavy vehicles is regulated under the Vehicle Parking Certificate (VPC) Scheme. This requires all such vehicles to secure a parking lot in an authorised Heavy Vehicle Park. Heavy vehicles must be parked overnight in the designated parking lot when not in use, and not along public streets or in private housing estates. Enforcement actions will be taken against vehicle owners who do not comply.

asked the Minister for Health (a) if he will give an assessment of the state of mental health in Singapore; (b) whether the Ministry keeps statistics on the number of people who are seeking treatment for mental health problems in Singapore by age group, gender, educational level, race and occupation; and (c) if he will give an update on the measures taken to improve mental health in Singapore.

The prevalence of mental illnesses in Singapore is comparable to that in other developed countries. Let me illustrate with two common mental disorders: schizophrenia and anxiety disorder.

The life-time prevalence of schizophrenia is estimated at below 1% in most countries. Ours is similar, at 0.7%. As for anxiety disorder, our prevalence is 3.4%. This is similar to our Asian counterparts, like Beijing of 3.2% and Japan of 5.3%. The west, however, appears to experience a higher rate of prevalence, from about 6% in Germany to 12% in France to 18% in the USA.

In terms of patient load, we served 18,300 new outpatients last year in our public psychiatric clinics. This was an increase of 700 new patients as compared to the previous year. On the inpatient side, there were 10,800 admissions last year, similar to the previous year.

We have some basic demographic statistics on the mentally ill patients. But we are conducting a more detailed nation-wide epidemiological study, to gather more data. We call it the Singapore Mental Health Study and we expect to complete it in a few months' time. It should provide us with valuable insights. For example, what are the help-seeking behaviours of patients with mental illnesses? What is the social and economic impact of mental disorders in Singapore? This will provide a more complete picture of the state of mental health in Singapore.

Meanwhile, we continue to invest in this sector. I have shared our plans in this House in March this year. I do not propose to repeat them.

Just to give one illustration, a significant portion of our investment is to expand community-based psychiatric services and capabilities. We are now supporting each patient with a serious mental illness with a case manager. This way, we can better ensure the discharged patients will comply with their treatment and have access to the rehabilitation services that they need.

We are also roping in more GPs to help, through the shared care programme with public hospitals. This will be more convenient for the patients, and some patients may also be more willing to seek treatment there. That is why we are extending portable subsidy via the Primary Care Partnership Scheme (PCPS) to the common mental conditions of schizophrenia and major depression.

Overall, in terms of prevention, control and treatment programmes, we have made some progress in recent years. But we know that much more lies ahead and we must continue to work on this area.

asked the Senior Minister (a) whether there are guidelines for banks and credit card companies to adhere to in inviting customers to apply for credit cards/packages and, if so, which agency oversees the enforcement of these guidelines; and (b) why are individuals with bad credit history, multiple credit card debts and arrears still receiving personalised letters and advertisements inviting them to invest and apply for more credit cards/packages.

Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef asked whether there are guidelines for card issuers in relation to inviting customers to apply for credit cards, and which agency oversees the enforcement of these rules.

Card issuers in Singapore have to adhere to regulations in the Banking Act which is administered by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). While the regulations do not prohibit card issuers from inviting customers to apply for credit or charge cards, card issuers must check that the applicants satisfy the minimum annual income requirement and other regulatory requirements, as well as the card issuers' internal credit risk criteria before approving the application. In addition, card issuers are not allowed to send or give credit or charge cards to someone unless the person has requested for it in a document that has been signed. These rules seek to ensure that customers have to take the additional step of applying for a credit or charge card before being issued one.

There are a few exceptions to this and they apply to the sending of "replacement cards", "additional cards" and "substitute cards". These are situations where the consumer is an existing cardholder of the card issuer. In the case of a replacement card, the cardholder is expecting the issuance of the card – for example, where the card is issued as a replacement for a lost card, or when the card is about to expire. For additional cards, an example would be where a bank wishes to upgrade the card of an existing cardholder. Substitute cards are cards issued for the sole purpose of enhancing security features of existing cards.

Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef has also asked about the marketing of credit cards to individuals with bad credit history or who are in credit card debt. Banks may only access information about a person's credit-worthiness with a credit bureau when that person applies for a credit facility with the bank. Access for any other purposes, such as for the marketing of credit cards, is prohibited in order to protect the individual's privacy. Through the mandatory credit bureau check, a card issuer can be informed of the number of credit lines that the applicant already has with other financial institutions and the applicant's repayment record for these facilities. This supplements the rigorous credit assessments that financial institutions are expected to conduct before they grant credit to customers.

Apart from credit bureau checks, we have several other measures in place to implement the Government's social policy of discouraging Singaporeans and permanent

residents from spending beyond their means. To ensure that individuals holding credit cards have sufficient financial means to handle these spending instruments, we have set the minimum annual income threshold at $30,000 for a credit card. We have also limited the amount of credit that an individual can obtain from a financial institution and its affiliated entities. An individual, whose annual income exceeds $30,000, can obtain credit of up to four times his monthly income.

These measures are in place to regulate the amount of credit that financial institutions grant to consumers, thereby mitigating the risk of over-borrowing by individuals from all income groups. At the same time, consumers also have a role to play in ensuring that they use credit responsibly, and within their means. They need to exercise prudence when deciding whether to sign up for a credit card, carefully assess their repayment ability and ensure that they do not incur excessive debt. The national financial education programme, MoneySENSE, continues to work with partners such as the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) and the media to educate consumers on the responsible use of credit facilities and the factors consumers should consider before taking on debt.

asked the Minister for National Development where consumers (sellers and buyers) have to negotiate with the property agents for an agreed commission rate, whether there will be any avenue for dispute resolution when the consumers or property agents do not honour the agreed commission rates.

With the formation of the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA), a new regulatory framework will be introduced for the real estate agent industry. Under this framework, CEA will prescribe a dispute resolution scheme to help property agents and consumers with contractual disputes, such as those involving payment of commission. The parties will be asked to go for mediation to resolve disputes amicably. For disputes which cannot be settled through mediation, the parties can choose to resolve it through arbitration. This dispute resolution scheme will be put in place in early 2011.

CEA's prescribed dispute resolution process involving mediation and arbitration provides a cost-efficient and convenient avenue for resolving disputes between property agents and consumers. Nevertheless, those who do not wish to make use of the prescribed scheme are free to consult their own solicitors on other recourses that they can take.

asked the Minister for Health (a) if there are regular audits conducted to assess the performance of nursing homes; and (b) if there is a current recommendation for the ratio of patients to nursing staff and what is the compliance rate.

My Ministry conducts regular audits on all nursing homes licensed under the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act. Their licences are subject to renewal every two years. They will have to comply with all the audit requirements before their licence can be renewed.

One audit requirement is that the nursing home must meet the minimum "care staff to patient ratio". The ratio will vary in accordance with the medical profile and hence the needs of the patients. For the majority of patients in our nursing homes, the ratio is for one care staff to between two to four patients.

asked the Minister for Health whether he will consider (i) implementing the recommendation of the Expert Committee for Immunisation to include the vaccination against the human papilloma virus (HPV) in the childhood immunisation programme; or (ii) subsidising the cost of the vaccine which is still too high for low-income families.

My Ministry has accepted the recommendation of the Expert Committee on Immunisation (ECI) to include the HPV vaccine in the National Childhood Immunisation Programme for girls aged nine and above. The ECI has further recommended that we encourage the parents to discuss the HPV vaccination with their family doctors, so that they can make an informed decision on whether to vaccinate their daughters. We will adopt the approach as recommended.

Needy parents with financial difficulty can apply for subsidy at the polyclinics, if they find the cost unaffordable.

asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) how many people do we have on the Public Assistance scheme over the last three years; (b) on average, how many cases can be weaned off the list annually and how many new cases are added on; and (c) how many of them are chronic or long-term recipients.

As at end FY 2009, there were 2,930 cases on the Public Assistance (PA) scheme. This was slightly higher than the 2,886 cases as at end FY 2008. As at end FY 2007, the number of PA cases was 2,930.

In the past three years, about 340 cases on average exited the PA scheme annually, and an average of 350 new cases was admitted each year. Approximately three out of four (73%) of PA cases who exited the scheme each year are elderly persons who had passed away or were admitted into Government-funded welfare/nursing homes. A small number who exit from the scheme each year are orphans or children of PA families who have started working and can support themselves.

The majority of PA clients are supported on a long-term basis, as 85% are elderly persons and another 11% are unable to work due to illness or permanent incapacity.

Besides the PA group, there is another 1,700 cases (as at mid-2010) residing in Government-funded welfare homes and receiving long-term care and support. They comprise mainly the frail elderly or those with chronic illnesses, disabilities or psychiatric conditions.

Cases who require temporary assistance are helped through other ComCare schemes like the ComCare Transitions or Work Support Programme.

asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he will provide an update on the status of the central bus planning consultations conducted by the Land Transport Authority; (b) when will the proposed changes be implemented to improve bus services; and (c) whether there are additional measures to improve bus services at Bukit Panjang.

The central bus planning consultations with the community led by Minister Lim Hwee Hua is one of the many platforms we use to gather feedback and work with the public to improve our public transport services. Such consultations are an on-going process and not a 'once-off' effort. From the consultations to date, we have received useful feedback on several aspects of the public transport network, including the frequency and reliability of bus services, journey times as well as suggestions for route changes.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has been actively implementing a holistic range of public transport improvement measures based on the feedback gathered. For example, since June this year, LTA has formalised a process through which they work with the public transport operators every quarter to identify specific bus services for improvement. The improvements are rolled out expeditiously after each quarterly review, and they have helped to improve the loading situation and ease crowding on the identified bus services.

LTA has also been improving the travel time and reliability of bus services through the implementation of bus priority measures, such as bus lanes and the mandatory-give-way-to-bus scheme. The mandatory-give-way-to-bus scheme has recently been expanded to cover another 24 bus stops, and we now have 178 km of bus lanes in total. LTA has rolled out improvements of public transport facilities, such as new integrated transport hubs, upgrades to existing interchanges, more barrier free facilities and covered linkways to transport nodes. Real-time information and system maps are also being made more widely available to improve information dissemination to facilitate journey planning. This has improved the overall public transport journey experience for commuters.

On bus route changes, what stood out from the feedback during the community consultation process was that, in most cases, the majority of the residents were not in favour of major changes to the existing routes as that would be disruptive. This is also what we have learnt from the experience in other countries – that major "big-bang" changes tend to be disruptive and confusing for commuters. Changes to the system should therefore be calibrated, incremental and progressive. Our principle has also been that any change must benefit the majority of commuters. Route changes will therefore be

introduced gradually, with some changes expected by year-end and more to be progressively implemented later on an ongoing basis.

Going forward, LTA will periodically update Advisers to the Grassroots Organisations on the major public transport improvements in their wards. The next update will reach the Advisers over the next few weeks. These updates will include improvements for both the bus and the rail networks as they work in tandem to bring integrated public transport services to our commuters and improve the overall public transport travel experience for all.

Dr Teo has also asked about improvements to the bus services in Bukit Panjang. Bukit Panjang has benefited from various improvements to the bus services in the area. For example, Service 922 was re-routed earlier this year to serve an additional two areas in the estate – Jelapang and Bangkit, with an improved peak hour frequency. As part of the quarterly review, service improvement measures were also identified for seven bus services which ply the Bukit Panjang area, to improve the loading situation on these services during peak hours. One of the most heavily-utilised bus stops at Block 270 in Bukit Panjang was also recently converted to a "bus hub", where the bus bay was lengthened to accommodate more buses at any one time. This has reduced the dwell time of buses at the bus stop and also shortened the overall journey time for bus commuters. For the elderly or the disabled, Service 171, which travels to town through Bukit Panjang, is now a wheelchair-accessible service. In the early part of next year, Bukit Panjang Interchange will also be upgraded to be wheelchair-accessible. Besides improvements to the bus services, Bukit Panjang residents also benefited from a new entrance to Fajar LRT station that is connected by a covered linkway to nearby blocks, and can look forward to the completion of the Jurong East Modification Project in 2011 which will ease crowding on the MRT system. Over the longer term, residents can also look forward to having a new MRT station in Bukit Panjang when the second stage of the Downtown Line is operational.

asked the Minister for Transport in view of Singapore's rapidly ageing population (a) whether LTA has any plans to modify the existing overhead bridges which the elderly find very difficult to use; (b) if so, when will such modification works start; and (c) whether LTA will ensure that new pedestrian bridges are also elderly friendly.

We would like to assure Mdm Halimah Yacob that we recognise the need to continually adapt our transportation system and road infrastructure to the changing demographics of our society. In fact, on-going improvements are already being rolled out progressively on the public transport network and pedestrian facilities to improve barrier-free access for our commuters, including the elderly. For example, by the end of this year, LTA would have completed a $60 million island-wide programme to make public pedestrian walkways, taxi and bus shelters, and public roads barrier-free and elderly-friendly.

Our pedestrian overhead bridges facilitate the safe crossing of roads. Where there is demand and traffic conditions allow, LTA will explore the provision of traffic light

crossings at the road-level, and adjusting the traffic light timings as appropriate so that the elderly can cross our roads safely. We have piloted programmes such as the Green Man Plus scheme, where senior citizens can extend the "Green-man" pedestrian crossing time by using their senior citizen concession farecards at selected traffic junctions. We will continue with these efforts going forward.

Specific to pedestrian overhead bridges, LTA has been constructing these in compliance with existing accessibility codes. For instance, there are guidelines for the steps to be adequately low and wide, so that they are more elderly-friendly. Where space permits, LTA has also been providing ramps at more pedestrian overhead bridges, to make it easier for the less ambulant and the elderly to use.

We are also exploring other ways to further enhance the accessibility of pedestrian overhead bridges for the elderly. LTA has been conducting detailed studies on the possibility of retrofitting selected overhead bridges in the immediate vicinity of MRT stations with lifts. This is a thorough study, covering not just the selection of bridges and technical feasibility, but also how the lifts will be operated and maintained once they are installed. As this is a significant undertaking, we have to weigh this carefully against cost considerations and other available alternatives.