ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 2001 TO 31ST MARCH, 2002 (Paper Cmd. 3 of 2001)

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head I (cont.) -

Resumption of Debate on Question [8th March, 2001],

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head I of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Mr Chay Wai Chuen].

Question again proposed.

The Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology (Mr Lim Swee Say): Sir, Mr Inderjit Singh asked about the progress of the Asian IT Belt.

Sir, the Internet revolution started around 1994 in USA. In the first five years of the Internet revolution, the revolution was very much US-centric. As a result, USA was able to pull far ahead of the other regions of the world in this IT revolution. The European community, under the coordination of the European Commission, decided to come out with a concerted response. Last year, they launched the e-Europe Initiative. Basically, e-Europe is a concerted response from the European community to make Europe an IT powerhouse and become active players in this global revolution.

In the case of Asia-Pacific, obviously we are not in any position to do so because the Asian economies are in different stages of development. Also, we do not have an Asian Commission to do this kind of coordination. But having said so, it would still be highly desirable for some Asian countries and economies to find ways to work together so that we can pool our resources and expertise, so that Asia as a whole can come out with the necessary response and not be left behind. It is with this intention that our Prime Minister suggested the idea of the Asian IT Belt. The whole intention is for some leading cities in Asia to link up with each other and provide the backbone of the IT belt in the Asia-Pacific. Over time, the other cities, as and when they are ready, can join this IT Belt.

We envisage that this Asian IT Belt would comprise five main thrusts. The first thrust is e-Infrastructure. This would include broadband connectivity as well as the standardisation of e-business rules and regulations. The second thrust is e-Markets. To facilitate the mass deployment of applications and services across Asia, we need to put in place some standardisation. For example, in the case of secured transaction, we need to implement PKI (Public Key Infrastructure). The third area is e-Capital. For example, the flow of venture capital fund within the Asia-Pacific, so that funding support for entrepreneurs will become more effective across Asia. The fourth area is e-Talent. Basically, to work together on the development of IT manpower, and facilitate freer flow of IT manpower across cities within Asia. And last, but not least, is the concept of e-Ideas. Basically, it is for the Asian community to come together to work together, to innovate with emerging technologies and come out with new ideas to exploit the new potential of IT.

We believe that by pursuing these five key thrusts, we will be able to create a more conducive environment within Asia to facilitate the growth of e-commerce and e-business. Over time, we hope this will serve as a backbone for IT development in Asia, and that more and more cities and countries will come on board. We would then be able to realise our vision of a Digital Asia.

Mr Inderjit Singh asked what are the concrete plans to realise this vision. Sir, this being a regional initiative, what we are doing now is to talk to like-minded cities to pursue this vision. Realistically speaking, we hope to start with maybe three to five cities in Asia. With these three to five cities, we can provide the first-cut backbone for the Asian IT Belt. As I said, over time, maybe more cities will come on board. Working together, we can realise the vision of a Digital Asia, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, the Government came out with a World Class Land Transport document some years back when it set forth its vision for a deliverable World Class Land Transport system for Singapore. In the process of implementing this plan over the years, it has achieved several important milestones, like ERP, inter-modal seamless transfer, North-East line, and LRT. Will the Minister update the House on the programmes and his Ministry's vision of a World Class Transport system? Can he also comment on the quality of service, for example, quality of ride, time to destination, accidents, schedules, apart from the infrastructures?

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Cheng San): (In Mandarin): Sir, as an open economy, we must have a highly efficient land transport system to ensure free traffic flow. Our public roads are like the blood vessels in our body. There should not be any blockage, otherwise our economy would suffer great losses, and our livelihood would be affected.

The performance and results of the Land Transport Authority (LTA) since its establishment in 1995, have been very commendable. But we must not be complacent. With rapid development, we must strive to achieve further progress upon our current success. Right now, we have to review to see whether we have effectively implemented the White Paper on a World Class Land Transport network, including the proposed Singapore Underground Road System (SURS).

I feel that, more importantly, we should be able to move at a faster pace to improve the public transport for our people. With the completion of the airport extension line and the North-East line, will the Government consider extension of the rail network to link up the major housing estates in Singapore, so that these housing estates can be better served by public transport? Will the Government consider bringing forward the plan to bring LRT to other housing estates, like Sengkang and Bukit Panjang? LTA should let our people know by announcing the schedule and implementation plan for such a scheme so that our people could plan for their future transport arrangements.

Sir, with greater efficiency and speed in the construction of public housing in new towns, I hope LTA will also have better coordination with the relevant agencies, like HDB, URA and Ministry of Education. Take Sengkang, for example. Before the commission of the Sengkang East Road on 22nd January, the old Punggol Road was the only approach road to the new town. This two-way narrow road had only two lanes on either side, causing great inconvenience to the residents. This makes us wonder if there is a lack of coordination in the overall planning. Because of earlier partial completion of the new town, the school has to start operating earlier. Nan Chiau Primary School was opened on 2nd January. But right now, buses cannot stop by the side of the school because the bus stop has not been approved by the relevant authority. Therefore, we can see there is a lack of coordination here. I hope that the various Government agencies can improve their coordination. They cannot proceed by the original schedule. They must be more flexible to take into account the development pace and the needs of the residents to make timely adjustment to the plan through better coordination among the various agencies.

There are a lot of developments to the Hougang New Town, Punggol Central and Punggol South. But right now, the residents still need to wait for bus services to be strengthened in this area.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen: Sir, the Ministry has announced that the open bidding for COE will start sometime in the second quarter of this year. Will the Minister inform the House why there was this delay and what is the situation for the trials and launch of this open bidding for COE? Given that this is quite a big system, there should be sufficient trials before the launch. Singaporeans are quite intolerant of these glitches, especially in the area of COE, where everyone is an expert and has something to contribute.

I also understand that there will be both closed and open bidding on alternate fortnight running parallel. Given that there will be disparity in the outcome of the two processes, how does the LTA intend to manage the disparity in outcomes, or merge the processes in phases?

Can the Minister also update the House on the new quota for the new year and whether there will be any review mechanism to be considered?

Mr Gerard Ee (Nominated Member): Sir, with the forthcoming introduction of open bidding, it may be timely to reconsider the bases of allocating COEs. Currently, COEs are allocated for the different categories. For motor vehicles, there are category A for cars with engine capacity of up to 1600 cc; category B for cars with engine capacity above 1600 cc; and category E, which is open and can be used to register any type of vehicle. There used to be more categories and allocations, unfortunately started on a historical basis, and have only served to perpetuate the historical pattern of demand. To some extent, collapsing the old categories I and II into category A has helped the situation. There were times when the prices of category I COEs, that is for the small cars of up to 1,000 cc, exceed that for category II COEs for cars with engine capacity between 1,001 cc and 1600 cc.

The reality is that bidding for COE in any category was open to everyone. There was no practical way of keeping category I COEs only for those with a more modest budget. On the other hand, a limited supply of COEs in any category will result in a higher pricing if the demand is there. Having different categories and varying supplies make the whole process of understanding how the COE system works unnecessarily complex. It is not surprising that most people would gladly leave it to the car dealers to handle the bidding on their behalf.

I would like to propose that the entire supply of COEs available at each bidding be placed in a single pool. People should just bid for COEs from the pool. In this way, the supply for any category of cars would automatically adjust according to the demand for that bidding.

12.45 pm

Having secured the COEs, there are two approaches. The first approach will require all successful bidders to pay the same lowest successful price. The second approach will adopt the successful bid price, as that for registering Category A vehicles, and the price for registering a larger capacity vehicle would be on a multiple of this base price. One can make a very strong case for either approach.

Sir, it would suffice to simplify the system by pooling all the COEs. I believe it would lead to a more stable COE pricing and also a simpler system would encourage people to do the bidding themselves.

Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan (Nominated Member): Sir, I would like the Minister to review the effectiveness of using the COE system to regulate traffic flow on our roads. The cost of owning cars in Singapore is extremely high as compared to the cost of owning cars in most other countries. Singaporeans travel quite frequently nowadays and they are conscious of how costly it is to own cars in Singapore vis-a-vis other countries. This can be attributed, in a large measure, to the artificial cost of having to pay for a certificate to entitle them to own a car.

COE prices fluctuate every month, sometimes, with huge pendulum swings. Such fluctuations impact buyers of new cars and second-hand car sales. Those who bought brand new cars at a higher COE will find it financially not viable to sell their cars when the COE prices have dipped. Second-hand cars that are of a cheaper range are usually those at the tail end of the 10-year COE period. In no time, such buyers will face a dilemma of having to fork out a large sum, ie, the prevailing premium to renew the COE for another 10 years, or renew it for five years, and scrapping the car thereafter. In essence, therefore, a car owner's COE dilemma continues even after he has owned a car.

Consequently, Sir, many Singaporeans, including our aspiring younger generation, find it extremely difficult and complicated to own a car in an island that we want them to call our home. Singaporeans, especially those with young children and elderly parents, would like a more convenient and effective means of driving their infants, children and elderly about in their own cars during off-peak hours. Cheaper cars would also benefit retirees who are looking for cheaper or second-hand cars without the fuss of having to fork out another sum of money for COE renewal.

I believe that we can find a creative answer to help them achieve this. After all, notwithstanding the great improvements in public transportation, the MRT and buses do not take the elderly and the children right to their homes. And at certain times, at certain places, and peak hours in Singapore, to catch a taxi would mean an intolerable waiting time. Our main concern is to control the number of cars on the roads, especially during peak hours, owing to the economic opportunity cost of road congestion.

Viewing from this standpoint, it becomes less relevant to consider the number of cars owned by Singaporeans at any one time. If the number of cars on the roads during peak hours does matter, then we should implement measures to deal with this rather than curtail car ownership. Let the family buy cheaper cars and use them over the weekend. Let the retirees buy cheaper cars with lesser COE renewal fuss, and let them use the cars during off-peak hours or periods.

Through the ERP system, we are harnessing technology to better control the flow of road traffic using the pay-as-you-drive principle. Let there be less artificially injected costs so that more people can own cars and make those who drive during peak periods pay more for the use of the roads.

Sir, we have implemented, modified and fine-tuned the COE system over many years. With the advent and use of technology that allows us to better control the flow of road traffic using the pay-as-you-drive principle, I suggest that it is time for us to review the COE system. Hence, I would like the Minister to enlighten us on how useful is the ERP system as a means to regulate the number of vehicles on the road and whether his Ministry intends to gradually phase out the COE system, thereby making car ownership more affordable.

In the meantime, Sir, I would like the Minister to consider a few proposals in respect of the COE system. Firstly, can the small car categories in the bidding system be reinstated, as the experiment to date is not conclusive that buyers of below 1,000 cc cars are better off? Secondly, can the Minister consider allowing COE renewals for a five-year period without having to scrap the car thereafter? This will make it cheaper for car owners to continue owning their cars and for low-budget buyers in the second-hand market.

Mr Gerard Ee: The principle behind offering COEs, through a bidding system, is to allow market forces to determine the pricing and, indirectly, influence the direction of COEs to those who need them most and are willing to pay the price. The common practice of packaging COEs into car sales has distorted the mechanism and therefore the pricing of COEs cannot be said to be influenced strictly by demand pattern.

In the package deals, COEs are subsidised. Instead of lowering the prices of cars when the cost is down, a dealer will prefer to subsidise the COE. After all, a sale is not completed until the buyer is able to register the car. From the perspective of the buyer, leaving it all to the car dealer in the package deal simplifies his life. In addition, by not lowering the car price and, instead, subsidising the COE, the buyer is greatly assisted in obtaining maximum financing of the purchase.

Certainly, it would appear that the present arrangements would benefit everybody. I, for one, have always gone for a package deal and it is so convenient. I am raising this subject as I believe that, in the longer term, it would better serve the consumer if the process for gaining a COE is separated from that for purchasing a car. By breaking up the two functions, COE pricing would more closely reflect market demand. Having obtained a COE, the consumer would then shop around for the best deal in town. Since the prices of cars will no longer include the price of a COE, consumers would be presented with a clearer picture of the pricing and make better judgement on the deal.

Armed with the information, such as the open market value of the car and the taxes that go with it, a consumer can gauge the amount of premium he has to pay in choosing one car over another. The present situation allows for some package deals to cloud the judgement of the buyer. In many cases, a consumer wrongly believes that a COE has been guaranteed only to find that he has to pay an additional sum of hard earned money to buy the car he has committed to. With the introduction of open bidding, it is time to consider making this change and stop cars from being sold as a package, which includes the COE. Consumers are now better placed to make informed judgement and allowing package deals to flourish cannot be in the interest of consumers.

The Minister for Communications and Information Technology (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong): Sir, first, let me answer the two cuts from Mr Chay Wai Chuen and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang on world class transport. Sir, both Mr Chay and Mr Yeo have asked for an update on what has been achieved in the White Paper so far. Mr Yeo has also asked whether we can speed up the expansion of the rail system and in fact whether we can link up the different housing estates with the rail network and whether we are going to expand the LRT to the other housing estates, just as we have done for Bukit Panjang, Sengkang, and, later on, Punggol.

Sir, let me first give an update on what we have achieved in the White Paper so far, as requested by both MPs. Sir, the White Paper sets out four initiatives. These are, namely, improving public transport, developing a comprehensive road network, demand management measures on car and integrated transport and land use planning.

Let me go through them briefly. Sir, the land transport system, the cornerstone of that system, is really our public transport system. This is an area that we are focusing a lot of our resources on. Our aim is to have an expanded Rapid Transit System (RTS) such that it is comprehensive in network coverage and it is easily accessible. Members will recall that in the White Paper, we had envisaged a long-term rail network of 160 km, and when we say "long term", we are talking about 30 years. At the time when the White Paper was prepared in 1996, the rail network at that time was 67 km long. Today, I am happy to inform Members that the RTS network is now 92 km long, ie, we are more than halfway to the long-term target.

On recent achievements, LTA completed the Bukit Panjang LRT system in November 1999 and the Expo Station in January this year. In the next few years, we will be opening the North-East line, the Sengkang LRT, the Dover MRT Station, the Changi Airport Extension, the Marina line, and the Punggol LRT line. Sir, the completion of all these projects by year 2005 will bring the RTS network to a total of 146 km, ie, we are about 90% to the long-term target by year 2005. Sir, in answer to Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, in effect, we are actually very far ahead of what was envisaged in the White Paper.

As to the linkage to the other housing estates and whether we are going to expand the LRT to the other housing estates as well, I would like to inform Members that LTA is actively studying the other rail projects and we will announce the projects as and when they are finalised. In terms of the LRT for the other housing estates, now that we have one operational in Bukit Panjang and we are going to have the second operational very soon next year in Sengkang, what LRT would like to do is to step back and observe how well these two systems are performing and how do they compare versus the bus-based system for housing estates. The system is very expensive and it is prudent for us to make a review before deciding whether to further expand the system to the other housing estates in the future.

Another good news for Members is that, over the long term, instead of the rail network of 160 km, we envisage that the long-term network will now stretch 540 km. So, in effect, we are going to make the rail network the basic infrastructure for public transport.

In terms of developing a comprehensive road network, again, LTA has managed to proceed ahead of what was envisaged in the White Paper. By the end of last year, LTA had already added 415-lane-km of roads. This is much higher than the 225-lane-km targetted by the end of 2001, as set out in the White Paper.

Sir, in terms of demand management measures, as you know, we have implemented ERP, as proposed in the White Paper. It is working very well and it is able to control congestion on the major roads. And because ERP is working very well, we do not need to expand the ERP system beyond the current gantries. However, if the congestion does worsen as the vehicle population grows, then ERP may have to be expanded to cover other areas and other parts of Singapore as well.

Sir, the vehicle quota system (VQS) has indeed been helpful in keeping the car population down. Just now two MPs raised points about the VQS. I will reply to that later on. 1.00 pm

Sir, the last pillar of the White Paper was the integrated transport and land use planning. Here, LTA is working very closely with URA and HDB on integrating land use in terms of town and transport planning. This will enable us to optimise the use of our land and to maximise the benefits of the integrated land transport system to consumers and to residents. As an example of the collaboration with URA and HDB, the hon. Member for Sengkang would realise that we are seeing there the integration, in terms of the use of the MRT and LRT stations together with the commercial operations, which will make the town a lot more attractive as well. The other example of the building-cum-station integrated development is the Dhoby Ghaut MRT station, which should be open very shortly.

Sir, in conclusion, we can say that LTA has, indeed, made good progress in the five years since the White Paper was released, and we are on track to developing a world-class land transport system.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang has asked about the coordination amongst LTA and other agencies. I understand that point would be brought up again later, and we will answer that together.

Sir, we have four Members talking on COE. Let me reply to them one at a time.

First, Mr Chay asked about open COE: why the delay, when will it be launched, and whether there will be sufficient trials because the public will not tolerate any glitches to the system. He has also asked for information on the new COEs for the next quota year (QY). I will go through his points.

Why the delay to the open COE system? Sir, the online COE bidding system that is being worked on at the present moment is a very complex system. As such, the contractor has had to spend a little bit more time than originally envisaged to make sure that the different elements of the system are well designed, and the software is written up properly.

Sir, the contractor has, in fact, completed the development of the various components of the system. What is happening now is that LTA and the contractor are carrying out a series of very comprehensive tests on the system. This is, as Mr Chay had pointed out, to ensure that the system is totally debugged before we launch it to the public. We expect to complete the tests by the second quarter of this year. If everything goes fine with the tests, we should be able to see the open COE system being launched around June or July this year.

Once the system is launched, we will introduce it on a trial basis and, during the trial, as Mr Chay had pointed out, we are going to alternate between the open COE and the present closed COE bidding system. The bidding will be done every fortnightly. What we will do is we would then divide that month's COE into two portions: one half for the open COE bidding and, a fortnight later, the other half, for the closed COE bidding system. As the two bidding systems will have different characteristics, it is quite possible that they will also have quite different outcomes. We will evaluate the outcomes from the two bidding systems during the trial period, and correct any shortcomings that may be observed with the new open bidding system. LTA will discontinue the closed bidding system once the open bidding system has stabilised, and the public is comfortable and familiar with the new system. We expect the trial period to last between six to twelve months.

In terms of the new COE supply for the new quota year, Sir, Members will be happy to know that the Government will continue to allow for a 3% growth rate in our vehicle population for the new quota year. Based on LTA's computations, the COE quota for QY2001 will be 86,831. This is about 20% lower than for QY2000, but it is much higher than the quota for the previous years. As an example, the COE quota for QY2001 is 27% higher than the QY1999 quota. LTA will be releasing more details of the annual quota shortly.

Mr Gerard Ee has proposed that we come up with a single pool of COEs, and he has given two options, if we have a single pool. One, let all the bidders pay the same price, or, two, let them bid but use a multiplier to differentiate between the different engine sizes.

Sir, in fact, this issue of whether to have a single pool of COEs is not a new one. The GPC had very carefully considered this question when reviewing the Vehicle Quota System in 1999. It is fair to state that, from the public transport point of view, having one category of COEs does make for efficient allocation. Basically, what we are interested in is: how many vehicles are we going to have on the road, and whether the vehicle has a bigger engine or a smaller engine. In terms of road use, it does not really make much difference. In terms of efficiency, what Mr Gerard Ee has mentioned is correct. However, the feedback from the public was that some segmentation of the COE quota system would be useful for social equity reasons because of the concern that if we do not have separate categories, the potential buyers of small cars may be squeezed out by the buyers of the bigger and more expensive cars. As such, the Committee recommended that, as a first step, we proceed to only merge the car COE categories from four to two, which is what we have today.

In terms of whether we should have a single pool, but still differentiate by having a multiplier, the complexity that is going to be introduced is not going to make anybody any happier. How do we allocate the multiplier? Whatever figure we pluck out from the air is not going to make anybody happy at all. So, I think the present system is working well. We only have the two categories for vehicles and, therefore, it is working. I think it is better that we stick to it. Let us have the open COE bidding first, see how that goes and, if the indications are that it makes sense later on to have a single category, I am sure the Government will be very happy to consider that.

On his point that having the different categories, in effect, fit the relative size of each sector, based on historical figures, I think Mr Ee need not worry about that because we have thought about it. That is why we have the open COE category: so that if there are more buyers bidding for small cars, for example, instead of all going for the small car category and bidding up the COE prices, they can still go into the open COE market and bid for the open COEs. So there is a balancing-tank effect there.

Mr Noris Ong lamented about the high cost of car ownership in Singapore. Sir, I think it is useful for us to take a step back and see whether we should be comparing ourselves with countries which do not have space constraints.

In Singapore, the reason why we need to have a very strong control on car population is that we are land-short. In fact, we should be comparing ourselves with the major cities of the world, like New York. Very few people who live and work in New York expect to own a car, and Singapore really is a major city. We do not have the open spaces where we can have a half-an-acre home and park 10 cars in the driveway. Unfortunately, in Singapore, there is no alternative to having controls over the car population because we have very limited land for roads and we have very limited land for parking cars. In fact, roads today already take up 12% of our total land space, and this is equivalent to the total land area used for residential housing. So we are already using whatever land we have for roads, and it is going to be very difficult to build a lot more roads. It is also going to be very difficult to build much more car parks in existing housing estates. If we look at the older housing estates like Toa Payoh, Queenstown, etc, the parking capacity is already very, very tight. So we must control both car ownership as well as car usage.

In fact, I think Mr Noris Ong made an interesting point. He is asking us to reinstate the category for small cars. This is in contrast to what Mr Gerard Ee has asked for, which is to merge everything into one category. This shows that, really, the issue of car ownership and usage is a very complex one, and we will have to try to balance all interests as much as possible.

Sir, he has also asked that we make it possible for car owners who want to revalidate their COEs to do it on a five-year basis rather than on a 10-year basis. This issue was again discussed quite extensively previously, and the reason for having that 10-year COE is, again, an equity reason, because the new car buyers are buying COEs on a 10-year basis and, therefore, the lifetime of each COE is really for a 10-year period. And if a car owner feels that his car has been very well maintained and can last another 10 years, he is free to revalidate for a full 10 years. In fact, he can do it indefinitely, as long as the car is well maintained. But we do recognise that there will be other owners who do not feel that the car can last 10 years and therefore, we have made it possible for them to have a final revalidation of the COE for a 5-year period, ie, this 5-year period is not meant to be an instalment payment scheme. We should leave the instalment payment scheme to the financing agencies. 1.15 pm

Mr Gerard Ee also touched on the point of package deals for COEs. He himself recognises that this package-deal system is actually a very convenient one and, in fact, it is one that the vast majority of car buyers use, and for all the reasons that Mr Ee has mentioned. The question is: should we now step in and disallow the packaging of the car prices with the price of a COE? This would be unnecessarily intervening in the free market mechanism. As Mr Ee has in fact recognised, the package pricing of the car with COE, in effect, results in a discount being given by the dealers. He used the term "subsidise". I would rather not use the term "subsidise" because I do not think car dealers are in the business of subsidising car buyers. But they do give a discount to make it more attractive for the car buyers to buy the car from them with the COE included. And I think that is to the benefit of the car buyer but there is a hidden cost to it. And again, that is something which Mr Ee has alluded to, and the hidden cost is that the buyer has no control over what the car dealer is going to bid for the COE, and over the timing of the delivery of the car that he has entered into an agreement to buy. So there is a hidden cost. Therefore, in a way, the buyer who buys his own COE is, in effect, forgoing the discount but, in return, he is getting the assured delivery of the car he wants, at the time he wants.

Sir, I think what we need to do is to encourage the car market to be more competitive so that car buyers can shop around and know what they are actually buying. To this end, LTA has done two things. One is that it has made it easier for individuals, companies and car dealers to parallel import the cars that they want. I have asked LTA to review and further streamline the import procedures to further facilitate parallel car imports. Of course, the cars that are being parallel imported must still meet our safety and environmental standards and regulations.

The second part that LTA is doing, and would be doing more, is to post every month on its website full details of the car prices, and this would include the OMV, customs duty, ARF and COE payable, ie, car buyers can then go into the website and know exactly what he has paid for versus what it actually costs the car dealer. They can then make an informed choice as to what to buy and whether to buy with or without COE.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen: Sir, the North-East line which is currently being built is going to be a driver-less system. Considering the several mishaps that have occurred in the driver-less LRT, I would like to ask the Minister what safeguards or preventive measures are undertaken so that the driver-less North-East line which travels at a much faster speed and with heavier loads will be assuredly safe. Although the trains are driver-less, I assume that the control centre is hopefully not controlled by robots. Will the Ministry ensure that people who run the control room have actually done stints on the ground so that they are experienced and know the limitations on the ground when they make decisions on the screen?

The second issue I would like to cover is whether there will be fare linking and seamless transfers between the North- East line and the MRT in order to minimise inconvenience to travellers even though this would be operated by different companies. This implies that there will have to be a mechanism for fare staging electronically between the different operators.

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, I would rather call the North-East line not driver-less but an automated system. There is a difference between driver-less and automated. "Automated" means that there is still someone in control.

Mr Chay has asked how safe would the system be and whether the control room would be manned by people or robots and how well they are going to be trained and, in terms of the fare system, how integrated would that be with the rest of the public transport system. Let me take them in turn.

In terms of safety, I think that really was a fundamental concern of LTA and the Ministry when we were considering the North-East line because safety must be of paramount concern. The safety system for the North-East line has been designed to the highest international railway standards. That I can assure the Members here. LTA started on the design of the North-East line by adopting the best existing features of the established fully automated systems elsewhere in the world. Then they proceeded to further enhance the design by incorporating the latest technology that is available today. LTA has also established very strict criteria for hazard evaluation to ensure that the system is safe for commuters. Furthermore, they proceeded to bring in independent consultants to audit the design and the construction. They have gone through many steps to make sure that in the design and construction stages, safety is kept at the forefront of everybody's attention.

Sir, the heart of the North-East line safety system is the automatic train protection system. What is this automatic train protection system? Essentially, this system develops an electronic envelope around each train, and it ensures safe speed and safe distance between each train. The system uses the positive contact between the steel wheels and the rails of each train, and on each train, there are 24 axles, which means on each train, there are 24 systems for feeding back to the control room as to where the train is. It is unlikely that we are going to lose touch with the train.

On top of that, there is another independent system that helps to locate the train, that is, on the rails, there are sensors. And as the train passes each of these sensors, there will be an automatic pick-up which would again be fed back to the control system through antennas. It is a dual channel feedback system, a dual sensor type of system. There are also several levels of redundancies to safeguard against failure. The train is also equipped with self-diagnostic system which allows the train to continually monitor the health status of the equipment and the functions on board the train. For example, if on any of the axles, there is a fault, that fault would be picked up and fed back to the control system, ie, we are not going to get to a stage where all the 24 have failed before we find out. So there are a lot of redundancies available in the system.

In terms of implementation, LTA would put the entire North-East line system through several months of rigorous integrated system and operational testing before we put it into revenue service. This is to make sure that the design work has been carried out properly. We do construct it properly, and we audit it, but there is nothing like putting the system through a stress test. We are going to put the system through several months of stress testing.

In terms of the control room, I am happy to tell Mr Chay that there will be human controllers in the control room and they would be all cross-trained and multi-skilled, including the train operation. They are going to be put through the various functions, they are going to be involved in the train operation and they are going to have the full experience necessary to run the control room.

Sir, I am also happy to inform Mr Chay that the North-East line would be an integral part of the rapid transit network and it will have the same ticketing system. In this way, travellers would not have to leave the North-East line train system and go out and then come back to join the other parts of the system. It is going to be a seamless travel for travellers on the North-East line. I hope that answers all his questions.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.

Sir, why should the present duopoly system on bus operations be maintained? That is a pertinent question. Could an additional player make bus services more efficient? I feel that there is room for another bus operator in Singapore.

Sir, there are a few good reasons why a third bus operator should be encouraged. First, the commuter's travel time could be reduced with better realignment of routes. The more frequent changeover between feeder bus system and from feeder bus system to MRT could be avoided and better reorganised. This would, in a way, help commuters to get to their destination on time. The second reason is that about 40% of the commuters travel by bus or by bus and MRT. It is expected that the MRT-bus type of commuters are going to increase dramatically in future as more new towns will be built and there will be more commuters travelling in bus as well as MRT.

Third, with an additional bus operator, the present two bus companies would be pushed to become more efficient and cost-effective. That, I think, prevents these two companies to monopolise the routes that have been carved out between the two companies. We can change the present status by allowing Comfort Holdings or others to participate as the third operator. The question is whether the Ministry would want to change its mindset and think of a more dynamic policy. The issue is that if you are looking for excellence in a world-class transport system, why not look at these issues more closely? The question is whether the commuters would eventually benefit from this exercise and I think they will.

I can anticipate that the Ministry's answer will be: two is enough. My answer to this whole question will be: three or more, if we decide in the interest of the commuters. I hope they do not stick to the old population policy style that two is enough.

Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng (Cheng San): Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.

Land transportation has an important impact on the everyday life of Singaporeans. Through a combination of control of vehicular growth, managing vehicular usage, provision of public transportation system and a good island-wide network, the land transport situation has generally served Singaporeans well.

While we have a good island-wide land transport system, the same cannot be said of the intra-town land transport system, especially in new estates. In new estates, the development of a comprehensive land transport plan is essential to reduce travelling time, prevent traffic congestion and improve road safety. Sengkang New Town was touted as being the first town where the entire road network and the land transport system was pre-planned. It is an example of faultless planning but flawed execution. Planning the land transport system is only the first step. Implementing the plan is a more difficult task. Success requires close coordination between various Government agencies, including the planners, LTA and URA, the builders, HDB and LTA, and the public transport service providers.

Although the plan was near faultless, the same cannot be said of the execution. The first year of living in Sengkang Town was a nightmare. What was inconceivable was that the entry and exit to the entire town was via the old Punggol Road with its limited width. As the town grew, I was aghast that the road network fell far behind in its pace of development. With the time taken to leave the town, taking as long as half an hour, it was becoming unbearable. This would be the same if you imagine that all the Ang Mo Kio Town residents could only enter and exit the town via Ang Mo Kio Avenue 6, or if all the residents in Tampines could only enter or exit the town through Avenue 7. 1.30 pm

These concerns were raised with the various Ministries, and I must be thankful that with the support of the Ministry of National Development and MCIT, we formed a committee to look at the development of the town. It has been a very enriching experience, not only for us but for all the Government agencies that have been involved in the work of this committee. And it shows that a lot of fine coordination is required for execution of even the best of plans. With the support from the Ministry of National Development and the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, bus services were added to provide an alternative, and road development was speeded up.

In January this year, another major trunk road was opened, one year ahead of time. For this, I have to thank the Minister for responding to our appeals. This has eased the traffic woes but not solved it. The MRT and LRT lines, which are due for completion, will also reduce some of these traffic woes. However, the problem remains.

Punggol Road remains the main life line of Sengkang Town. It is also the link to Tampines Expressway. Almost daily, during peak hours, you can see traffic tailing back into the Expressway from the slip roads into Punggol Road. If you think this was bad, the worst is yet to come, as the highly touted town of the future, Punggol 21 or Punggol New Town has also one arterial life line, and no prizes for guessing the right answer. Yes, it is again our old Punggol Road.

As blocks of flats in Punggol New Town sprout out quickly, more people will share the nightmare of the Sengkang residents. I am no town planner, but what surprised me is that no one thought much of it. When Sengkang Town grew to half the size of Ang Mo Kio Town, the planners assumed that an old arterial road would not only meet the needs of the new town but would also be sufficient for another new town as well. I think that the Ministry needs to react quickly. New entry and exit roads need to be opened. Building of new expressway entry and exit points for Punggol and Sengkang New Towns need to be accelerated. Additional flyovers linking Punggol New Town to Sengkang New Town across the TPE must be built to give the town a new life line.

Living in Punggol New Town is rather precarious presently. Can you imagine this - all it takes is a traffic accident or a vehicular breakdown along Punggol Road to prevent entry or exit from the new town? An entire new town with one single entry and exit, and yes we are talking about Punggol 21. I urge the Minister to consider a comprehensive review of the road network development schedule in Sengkang and Punggol New Towns to ensure that they will measure up to the claims that these are towns with ideal land transport plans.

The Chairman: Mr Goh Chee Wee is not here. Dr John Chen.

The Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology (Dr John Chen Seow Phun): Sir, I thank Members for their questions. Dr Vasoo asked whether the present duopoly system in our public transport is good enough, and whether we can have another operator to compete with the existing two operators.

Sir, we have two existing companies providing public scheduled bus services throughout Singapore. Between them, they are required to cover most parts of Singapore, and cover both the profitable as well as the unprofitable routes. The current industry structure has allowed the two bus operators to provide a generally high quality and comprehensive bus service, with affordable fares. How is this achieved? This is achieved through the Public Transport Council (PTC) requiring the bus operators to meet a set of quality standards, including service coverage, frequencies, operating hours and other aspects of operation to safeguard commuters' interest, even for unprofitable routes. This is what we call the universal service obligation (USO) that the bus companies have to meet. This USO is not without cost to the bus operators, and therefore Government needs to consider very carefully whether the industry can sustain more operators. Because, as it is, the bus operators have to service the non-profitable routes, and therefore they are, in a way, cross subsidising. If we allow another operator to come in, we have to consider whether that operator would also have universal service obligation, and if they do not have USO, then will it be fair to the existing operators? And if you allow the new operator to cherry pick the profitable routes, then the viability of the existing operators may be in question.

Right now, there is already some form of competition between the two operators by way of the PTC benchmarking them against each other for service levels. If we were to allow unfettered competition in the bus market, this kind of unfettered competition can lead to unprofitable routes not being served, and a decline in viability for all the players. And the end result can be a decline in service standard.

Nonetheless, I agree with Dr Vasoo that we should increase competition where appropriate. In this regard, some steps were taken last year to introduce more competition into the industry. For instance, the PTC called an open tender last year to select the operator who could offer the most competitive fares for providing public bus services to Jurong Island. The PTC also invited both private and public transport operators to submit proposals for introducing more night bus services. We can do more along these lines, if there is demand for such services. In fact, there are other areas where we allow competition. For instance, we have Scheme B bus services plying along certain trunk routes, and this was in response to complaints that these busy routes were not adequately served. We have therefore introduced Scheme B bus services in order to provide a higher level of service. So, if there is any complaint about poor services, we will get the PTC to closely monitor those routes and tighten the standards, if necessary, or maybe invite another operator to service those areas, if the existing operator cannot meet these standards.

Sir, Dr Michael Lim questioned the implementation of the road network in Sengkang. Earlier, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang complained about the coordination problem between the Government agencies. Yes, today, there is a system of coordination between LTA, HDB and other agencies involved in new town development. And roads, for instance, are built in tandem with the development of a town. In the case of Sengkang, however, I do agree with the Member that the coordination did not work as well as it should. The key reason for this is that the ongoing construction of the North East MRT line and the LRT system has hampered the speedy construction of some major internal roads in Sengkang, giving rise to inconvenience to residents, and the situation was aggravated by the rapid growth of Sengkang.

Dr Michael Lim also mentioned that the exit and entry roads of the town via the Expressway are inadequate. Because of the problems that the Member has fed back, LTA has worked closely with the MP and grassroots organisations to solve the problem. And with the stepping up of this effort, we have opened up some of these roads ahead of schedule, as mentioned by Dr Michael Lim. For instance, we have opened up Sengkang East Way, which was originally scheduled to open after the completion of the underground construction works in June this year. This was completed ahead of schedule in January last year.

Sengkang East Road was also opened in January this year, as mentioned by Dr Michael Lim, almost a year ahead of the original schedule in end 2001. And with the opening of Sengkang East Road, there is another exit and entry point for Sengkang town via the CTE. I will continue to press LTA to come up with solutions to alleviate the congestion in Sengkang, even while construction works are ongoing.

For Punggol, LTA will be building two more fringe roads. This is in addition to the internal road network that HDB will build in tandem with the town development. One of these two roads is the interchange at the Tampines Expressway connecting Sengkang East Road, and this will serve the connection between Punggol Town and TPE, as well as Sengkang Town and TPE. LTA will also build another flyover across TPE connecting Punggol Town and Sengkang Town. I believe work will start in March this year and it should be ready in 2003. So this will serve to improve the road network in the two new towns, as well as connecting them to the existing expressways.

Let me conclude by assuring Dr Lim and Mr Yeo that LTA will continue to work closely with HDB in developing the road network to serve the needs of residents moving into Punggol Town and ensure that the problems encountered in Sengkang will not be repeated in Punggol Town.

Dr Vasoo: Sir, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister of State as to why we are so keen in protecting the interest of these two bus companies which have made respectable profits. He has mentioned that other private operators have come in to tender for routes. Can we not open the doors wider?

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, as I said, we are actually acting in the interest of both the bus operators and the commuters, because we want to have efficient public transport and, at the same time, we want to make sure that this public transport operation is viable. We also need to provide transport to virtually every household in Singapore. And some of these services will not be profitable. The best way to ensure all of these is to have dual monopolies where each monopoly is given both profitable and unprofitable routes. This is the existing structure.

When we introduce new operators, we have to look at the needs of areas that are not properly served. If they are properly served, and if we were to allow another operator to come and cream off the profit of those profitable routes, then it would make the existing operators less viable. Then perhaps fares will have to be adjusted because if they are not viable, in the end, the service level will be affected. This is the rationale for having this existing duopoly system. In fact, in many parts of the world, we do not see bus operations having free competition. 1.45 pm

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Sir, one of the most familiar types of visitors to the meet-the-people sessions is the heavy vehicle driver. Usually, he has been booked for illegal parking. He wants the MP to help him get the fine waived or reduced. Often, he comes with several summonses. I believe many Members have similar experiences. At first I was somewhat perplexed by this group. Either they are very bad statisticians who cannot calculate properly the probability of being booked or there is a genuine problem.

Sir, there is a genuine problem. Heavy vehicle car parks are sited kilometres away from residential blocks. That is sound town planning policy. But unfortunately that is where the planning stops. There is no follow-up from the land transport policy side. Should we not require bus operators, for example, to operate early hour buses to get these people who work very, very early, about four in the morning, to their heavy vehicle car parks? Initially I asked them why they did not take public transport. The common response - no buses that early. Why not taxis - too expensive. Why not use the motorbike - no licence. Why not use bicycles - always stolen. Frustrated, I was tempted to ask: why not join brisk walking clubs. But that would have added insult to injury.

Sir, this is a small matter in the context of a national policy on land transport, even smaller in the context of the aspiration to achieve a world class transportation system. But I must really ask: is there no transport supremo, no oversight inter-departmental committee that could finally resolve this small dot of the problem? Is it too difficult to get the bus companies, the LTA, URA, HDB, to talk together about how to help this unfortunate group of persons? Can we not, as the MOS mentioned just now, ask the PTC to have a USO (universal service obligation) to deal with this heavy vehicle car park problem. I would like to urge the Ministry to give some priority to this issue and these persons with some chance of avoiding future bookings.

Finally, Sir, speaking of another form of public transport, namely, taxis, totally unrelated to the first issue I raised, I should like to ask why taxis are not allowed to use bus lanes during the restricted period, as common in many other countries. The reason I ask this is that very often, I notice that the bus lanes are not well utilised even at peak hours while everyone else seems to be cluttering in the other lanes, adding to the congestion. I hope that the Ministry will ensure that improvements be made to bus services and other means of public transport. Singapore has a good reputation internationally for its clockwork-like efficiency in many sectors, and a good public transport system catering to the needs of all types of residents should be within achievable targets.

Dr Jennifer Lee (Nominated Member): I would like to ask the Minister what the status is of the action on the recommendations of the IMC on the Ageing Population with regard to meeting the transport needs of elderly commuters. It has been a year and a half since the IMC Report was published in 1999. I am interested in the progress at this point in time. Because in the recent discussions on the subject of making the environment family-friendly, it was noted that parents with young children share very similar challenges in using our public transport system as the older population. A parent with a child in a pram faces the same problem negotiating flights of steps and narrow automated turnstiles or gates in MRT stations, or getting on and riding in a bus, as an elderly frail person in a wheelchair. A parent carrying a child on one arm and possibly shopping or other bags in the other experiences the same difficulty in getting on a fast-moving escalator in our MRT stations as a senior citizen who is perhaps not so steady on her feet.

May I therefore ask if the North-east MRT line and the LRT stations currently being built will indeed have barrier-free access, and whether in fact any existing MRT stations have yet to be retrofitted with ramps and lifts.

With regard to buses, what progress has been made on the proposed pilot project to test the efficiency of wheelchair-accessible buses? Has anybody taken that up?

In the past year and a half, has LTA been more successful in encouraging taxi operators to bring in more wheelchair-friendly cabs and what are the proposals to reduce taxes for this type of vehicle in return for reduced fares for the target users of this service?

There were also two short-term measures recommended, ie, of looking into the pool of existing transport resources and modifying current transport arrangements to ensure that there are affordable and elderly-friendly transport services to eldercare facilities even now. This was to be undertaken jointly by MCDS, MOH, NCSS and the LTA. What has been the outcome of this effort?

While the IMC gave a longer time horizon over which the LTA might implement its recommendations, anticipating that the numbers of elderly would really start to grow tremendously in the next decade or two down the road, the challenge in making the environment family-friendly is here with us today. I would therefore like to ask the Minister what the timeframes are for implementation of the recommendations and if these timeframes can be speeded up for the benefit of both senior citizens as well as parents with young children.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Sir, I have two cuts. Can I be allowed to take the two cuts together?

The Chairman: Take the first cut, allow the Minister to reply to it first before you proceed to the second cut.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Very well, Sir. I will take the first cut first.

(In Mandarin): During the Budget debate last year, I mentioned that the CTE was like a very heavily congested artery and there was a need for us to perform a bypass surgery on it. The residents in the north-eastern part of Singapore are very happy that the Minister has decided to speed up the construction of Kallang/Paya Lebar Expressway. I hope LTA would give us more details and advise us on the time-frame of this work.

As for the very congested artery, the CTE, I think the Government should consider putting in a "stent", that is, to expand the bottleneck part on the CTE or even convert some of the roads into two-tier highways. I hope that the Government would seriously look into this matter. I am sure we do not wish to see more toll-gates along the CTE. I think we should convert them into two-tier highways so that the traffic can be more free-flowing. Also, the bottleneck situations at the exits are very serious. Whenever a vehicle comes to the exit, it would run into a traffic jam and the motorists cannot reach their destination on time. Then, all our efforts to make our highway free-flowing would be in vain

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, Prof. Chin expressed the woes of the heavy vehicle drivers. In fact, as an MP, I have also received a lot of appeals and feedback from them. I shall restrict myself to the public transport part and not to comment on the National Development part about the provision of parking.

Prof. Chin feels that we should provide public transport to these workers in odd hours of the day. I would like to respond that there is a cost to doing so. Because while you can provide a 24-hour service, but then the cost would be quite tremendous. For this reason, we also do not service shift workers, for instance. Shift workers will have to find their own transport or their employers will have to provide transport for them to get home. So there is a limit to what we can do. For now, in terms of demand for transport, it is still not a huge demand. Therefore, to provide a cost-effective service to them would be very difficult. You can, but then the cost would be very high. For this reason, shift workers get their transport services from their employers or they use their own motorbikes, or whatever.

In a way, these heavy vehicle drivers are like shift workers. They are small in numbers. Some of course are working for bigger employers, and these bigger employers should be able to try to provide transport for them. For the smaller ones or the self-employed, it is really difficult to provide a bus service just to service a handful of people. If they tell you that even if they use bicycles and they are stolen, I think they have gone a bit too far. So they would have to try to find their own transport arrangement to get to work in these odd hours of the night. In terms of trying to, say, start the service early, as proposed by Prof. Chin, I can ask PTC to take a look. But, again, you would have to weigh the cost versus the benefits.

On taxis, Prof. Chin wants us to allow taxis to use the bus lanes. I am sure he knows what bus lanes are for. When we determine the drawing of the bus lanes, there is a standard, and this standard is that at least 50 buses per hour must use this route in order to have a bus lane. In CBD, at the moment, there are about 120 buses per hour using these bus lanes. There are in Singapore about 18,000 taxis. If you allow taxis to drop off and pick up passengers along the bus lane, it is definitely going to affect the flow of operation of buses. We know that public transport is very important and public transport by buses is a very efficient way of transporting people, and commuters value such smooth flow of buses. So the reliability of bus services is therefore very important to Singaporeans. Therefore, we would not like to risk disrupting such good bus services. But we do note that there are areas where perhaps the bus lanes are not fully utilised. In fact, I asked the same question as Prof. Chin when I drove along some of these roads and I saw the bus lane without many buses. Hence, since last year, we have started to allow bus lanes outside the CBD areas for private buses - school bus and private hire bus. This is the first step, so as to utilise the bus lanes more fully. We will review after some time and see what is the impact of these additional buses on the operation of scheduled public buses. If we can, we will consider his suggestion of allowing other types of vehicles to use the bus lanes.

Sir, Dr Jennifer Lee wanted an update on the programme to implement the IMC's recommendations. It is our objective to make our public transport system accessible to all, and that includes the elderly as well as mothers with young children in strollers. Towards this objective, all on-going rapid transit system projects and new LRT lines will comply with the code of barrier-free accessibility. So this includes the North East line, Expo Station that we have just opened and the LRT that we are going to operate. So, in fact, the Bukit Panjang LRT, which was opened in November 1999, also has complied with this code. For the existing 48 MRT stations, LTA is currently embarking on an exercise to retrofit them with lifts, ramps, and disabled toilets. In fact, currently, there are four pilot stations that are being retrofitted and the remaining 44 stations will also be progressively upgraded in batches and stages between next year and late 2004. So by end 2004, we should be able to retrofit all stations. 2.00 pm

As for commuter facilities, such as taxi stands and bus shelters, pavements, etc, accessible facilities would be progressively provided and evolved alongside planned development or major upgrading works. She also asked about buses. The IMC encouraged bus operators to make the bus system more elderly-friendly in the long term by introducing elderly-friendly buses, as older buses are being phased out. We cannot do it overnight because the existing buses are still in use. As they are being phased out, and when bus operators buy new buses, they will make sure that these buses are elderly-friendly. SBS and TIBS have to-date brought in a total of 192 elderly-friendly low floor buses with either single or zero step. And this year, I am told that the operators intend to bring in another 120 elderly-friendly buses.

She asked about buses for wheelchair. That is something which has to be looked into very carefully because it is not just the capital cost, it is also the operation of the wheelchair, what they call kneeling buses, that has to be looked at because they may affect the efficient operation of our existing bus operation. So these are things which have to be further looked into.

Dr Lee also asked about taxis that can take in wheelchair and whether we can facilitate those taxis. Yes, we intend to make it easier for taxi companies to buy such taxis because she is right that these taxis at the moment cost more compared to the normal taxis. So I think we should incentivise them to bring in such taxis which can take in wheelchair.

The third recommendation of IMC was to examine how existing transport resources can be pooled and arrangements modified to provide affordable elderly-friendly transport services to elder care services and facilities. Individual VWOs currently provide transport services to their clients by means of contract buses or retrofitted vehicles capable of transporting the wheelchair bound. MCDS and NCSS are currently studying the need to pool together and centralise the resources of the various VWOs for more optimal management and utilisation. In fact, the Ministry thinks that this is a good way of providing transport services to the elderly and to the handicapped. Because at the moment, each one provides its own and that can be inefficient. But if we can centralise them, the resources can be better utilised.

Sir, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked about the progress of KPE and what we are doing to alleviate the congestion in CTE. The LTA will be constructing the Kallang and Paya Lebar Expressway (KPE) to provide an alternative route for people in the North East sector. The tenders for all major contracts for the KPE will be called by the end of this year, and the whole expressway will open in 2006. The KPE, when completed, will help relieve congestion on the CTE. In the meantime, the LTA is expanding the CTE and Braddell Road interchange. This involves the construction of an underpass along Braddell Road, and the realignment and widening of the four slip roads leading to and from the CTE. When completed in December 2002, this project will facilitate the flow of the traffic leaving the CTE and thus, help to improve the traffic flow along the CTE. The opening of the North-East line in 2002 next year will give people in the North East sector another transport alternative, and remove some traffic demand from the CTE.

He asked whether we can have a double deck expressway along CTE. To have this kind of double deck expressway is very costly. At the same time, when you introduce more traffic on to the roads, you will also have problem when the traffic converges to make sure that there is no congestion. I think we have to be very careful when we consider such double deck highway.

Sir, I believe I have answered all the questions.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: (In Mandarin): In recent years, the number of fatal accidents happening along the expressways is very alarming. Putting aside the human factor, such as drunken driving, we want to ask whether or not the design of our highways has reached international safety standard.

Has LTA conducted any comprehensive inspection on our highways to ensure that the safety of our road users would be protected? We would also like to remove all the objective and environmental factors that would threaten the safety of the road users. Many residents and NTUC members have reflected to me that the safety measures provided to the workers who are doing road repairing or tree pruning works along the highways are not adequate. I hope LTA would enhance the safety measures so that the workers who are doing the road repair or tree pruning works would be adequately protected.

In addition, the positioning of the traffic signboards should also be looked into. These signs should give a clear indication as to when there is an exit ahead. If the signboard is positioned too near to the exit, the drivers will not be given sufficient notice to enable them to change lanes safely. Noticing the signboards just before the exits, some rash drivers would just swerve their cars into the lane of the other cars without due care and diligence for the safety of the other users of the road, resulting in some serious accidents. Moreover, very often these road signs are blocked by the trees. I think this is a very common phenomenon.

Many residents are also quite unhappy with the frequency of the diggings along the highway and they are questioning whether LTA has been coordinating with the other Ministries. Many residents in the private estates felt that roads are being dug up much too frequently by the various departments, such as the Telecoms, PUB, Ministry of the Environment, etc, with one department digging it, patch up, and then another department would come and dig it up again. This lack of coordination among the various departments causes a lot of inconvenience to the residents and danger to the road users.

Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan: Sir, I would like the Minister to review how taxi fares can be made better as well as to reduce the waiting time for taxis. First, the taxi fares. There are currently many types of supplementary taxi charges. These are charges for dialing in to make reservations, charges for waiting time, charges for entering the CBD, charges for going to the airport, charges for hailing the cab at certain hours, and so on. These can be quite confusing for taxi passengers when the supplementary charges are kicked in. While the meter indicates one reading, the passenger may be asked to pay another amount. This amount may be correct when the various supplementary charges are taken into consideration. But short of reasoning it out with the taxi driver, it is not easy on your own trying to account for the higher taxi fares than what is indicated in the taxi meter.

Sir, if our taxis are using the GPS system, I do not see why they cannot harness technology to provide clearer reading of taxi fares. Our taxis should be equipped to provide printouts so that if the taxi fare is different from the meter reading, the printout will give a breakdown of the various supplementary charges. This will avoid giving tourists and visitors, who are unfamiliar with the various supplementary taxi charges, the wrong impression that our taxi drivers may be over-charging.

Secondly, the waiting time for taxis. It is extremely difficult to hail a taxi during certain hours and at certain locations, for example, just before midnight, during the peak period, in the CBD, Orchard Road area, Turf Club, etc. Can the Minister enlighten us on whether his Ministry considers the waiting time for taxis in deciding the number of taxi licences? What is the average waiting time for taxis in Singapore and how do they fare as compared to other cities?

I understand that the supply of taxis is a fine balancing act and that an increase in the number of taxis to cater for the peak hours may result in excess capacity during the off-peak hours and therefore lower income for taxi drivers. This, however, may be partially addressed by raising taxi fares so that fringe commuters would decide to use other means of public transport, or use the taxis merely for connection to MRT stations or bus routes. I would like the Minister to elaborate whether there are plans on hand to deal with this predicament, and whether the solution is to introduce more taxi operators.

Mr Ong Kian Min (Pasir Ris): I wish to raise the concern of drivers who are employed to drive their companies' vehicles. Under the Road Traffic Act, the liability of such employed drivers for certain offences is no different from drivers who are also owners of the vehicles. I believe that they should be treated differently as their circumstances are very different. Owners must be held responsible for the maintenance of their vehicles. On the other hand, being mere employees, employed drivers have little or no control over the maintenance of the vehicles they have been asked to drive.

I would like to highlight two of such offences. First, under section 15 of the Road Traffic Act, any person who uses on any road any vehicle for which a licence is not enforced is guilty of an offence. I have come across a case where the driver noticed that the vehicle's road tax had not been paid for a few months. On asking his employer, he was verbally assured that the arrears had been settled when, in fact, that was not the case and the vehicle had been deregistered due to non-payment of road tax. The driver was in no position to ask his employer for documentary evidence that the road tax had indeed been paid and the licence was still in force. He could only take his employer's word for it. However, after he was stopped by the police, he was prosecuted for driving a deregistered vehicle and asked to attend court to answer to the charges. 2.15 pm

Secondly, under section 72 of the same Act, the driver of the vehicle which emits smoke or visible vapour is guilty of an offence. Sir, in the present job market, the employed drivers are fearful of losing their jobs and their rice bowl. If they were to raise concerns of roadworthiness or registration of the vehicle with their employers, the chances of being fired are rather high. They are legitimately concerned that they may lose their jobs and are, therefore, forced to take unwarranted risks of facing the dire consequences themselves. For them, it becomes a question of choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea. If they refuse to drive the vehicle, they will be fired and others, who are more desperate, may take their place. If, on the other hand, they drive the vehicle on the roads, they may have to face the risk of being caught and prosecuted.

I would like to ask the Minister to review the law, such that employers share a greater burden of maintaining the vehicles. In this way, we are still maintaining safety on our roads and yet placing the responsibility on the right shoulders.

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (Marine Parade): Sir, before I speak on the cut, I would like to declare my interest as a Director of Singapore Technologies Kinetics, which is involved in the business of developing electric and hybrid vehicles.

Sir, I believe the Government's stand on the role of electric or hybrid vehicles should be strategic and not confined to vehicle ownership considerations. The rationale for using the environmentally-friendly electric vehicles (EVs) is relatively clear-cut. Besides, our small size makes for a conducive environment to use EVs to maximum effect. However, it is also well-known that, despite the 20% lower OMV incentive, the cost of EVs can still end up some 50% higher than those of comparable conventional vehicles. Therefore, other things being equal, there is really no incentive for consumers to switch to EVs.

Several other countries have put in place a framework for the gradual conversion of use to electric or hybrid vehicles. In the US, for example, 10% of all new vehicles in California must use alternative fuel, of which 4% must be zero emission. Hong Kong is granting a one-time registration exemption for zero-emission vehicles and is working on incentives for hybrid vehicles.

I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister to consider more substantive incentives to promote the use of electric or hybrid vehicles, and not to limit these to passenger cars. Introduction of a certain mix to public vehicles, such as buses and taxis, should also be contemplated as well, as these tend to spend more time on the road. Any reduction in pollution will therefore be material.

Furthermore, to support such a strategic move, the Government must also ensure that the infrastructure for use of EVs exists. HDB, JTC and URA should, therefore, consider setting up charging stations in car parks under their control. Otherwise, the inconvenience will negate whatever incentives the Government has put in place, and there would be few takers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology (Assoc. Prof. Yaacob Ibrahim): Sir, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang has raised the issue of safety on our roads. I would like to reassure Mr Yeo that LTA looks very closely at our design, and we are putting in place a lot of measures to ensure that our roads continue to match international standards.

He has raised the issue of construction on road sites. Let me address some of the specific issues he has raised. Let me first inform the House that LTA has a Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Control for works in progress along roads. Contractors and their workmen should follow this to ensure that the appropriate sign posting to forewarn motorists of any works ahead, and on the safety measures to be observed. If the contractors fail to comply with the Code, they will be fined and issued with demerit points. They can also be suspended from carrying out any other new works along the roads. In addition, contractors who are working along the expressways are required to notify the EMAS control room of their roadworks so that we can flash the appropriate warning messages on the electronic panels located along the expressways.

Another measure that we have taken is that contractors are allowed to work along expressways only during off-peak hours and, if they wish to work along the expressways, they must submit an application to LTA. LTA will advise contractors to stop work and leave the site immediately, if any congestion is observed. So these are some of the measures that we have put in place.

Certainly, if there are complaints with regard to congestion and ill-placed signages, motorists can refer their complaints to LTA, which will investigate and take remedial measures swiftly. My Minister has instructed LTA to step up enforcement, especially at construction locations, to ensure that our rules are strictly followed in view of the safety concerns.

In terms of the blockage of the signages by plants and signboards, LTA works very closely with NParks, and we conduct regular patrols on our roads to look out for any blockage. Once such a blockage is found, LTA will alert NParks immediately, if there is a need to remove the blockage. LTA is also careful that new signboards do not block motorists' view at road junctions. It has, in fact, recently conducted an exercise to review the position of existing signboards. Some of the signboards have since been combined to reduce the number of signboards and ensure that the motorists' view is not blocked.

Finally, Mr Yeo raised the issue of road digging. Road digging activities, Sir, are coordinated through the Road Opening Coordination Committee, which the LTA chairs, and comprises representatives from organisations that need to dig up the roads to lay their facilities. They include PowerGrid, PowerGas, PUB, SCV, SingTel and many others. Members of the Committee will coordinate their works and, where possible, tie in with LTA's road construction and maintenance programme, to minimise disruption to traffic flow and ensure safety of road users.

There is also a requirement that newly completed roads can only be opened up for laying of services two years after the completion of the road construction. For newly resurfaced roads, the ban on road opening is for one year. However, an exception to the above ban is made if the works are of an emergency nature, such as the repairing of a damaged pipe or a sewer pipe.

Over the years, LTA and the members of the Committee have also come up with many improvements, including new methods of laying pipes and cables without the need to dig the roads. Notwithstanding this precaution, Sir, there are about 8,000 road digging works annually as a result of the many development works and high demand for utility services.

Mr Noris Ong has raised a few things about our taxi industry. Let me first reply on the question regarding fares. Since 1997, taxi operators have been progressively replacing taxi meters with more sophisticated types that display the various fare components, eg, booking fees, meter fare and the various surcharges. Today, about 92% of the 19,000 taxis on the roads have been fitted with these new taxi meters. Taxi commuters are able to get an itemised receipt from these taxi meters, on request. The remaining 1,500 taxis will be equipped with similar meters progressively over the next 2 years.

Regarding the availability of taxis, Mr Noris Ong raised the issue on whether or not we are looking into how to ensure that taxis are available, especially in areas such as the CBD, or after past midnight. On the issue of taxi shortage before midnight, taxi operators have the flexibility to adjust their surcharges to match demand with supply, as fares have been deregulated since 1998. TIBS' taxis, for example, have modified their surcharge to start at 11.30 pm, to encourage more of their drivers to be on the roads before midnight.

Notwithstanding some of these measures, Sir, we are looking into putting in place a quality standard for the taxi industry. At the moment, for example, we receive many complaints, and we deal directly with the taxi operators regarding the abuse of signages and people not wanting to pick up fares. So there is an on-going review for the taxi industry. Mr Ong has asked whether we could solve some of these teething problems with a third operator. We will leave this to the review, as we deregulate the industry further, as to whether or not there is a need for more than two operators currently, Sir.

Mr Ong has raised the issue of the liability of employee-drivers for vehicle offences. Sir, the law does place the primary responsibility on the owner of a vehicle to ensure that the vehicle complies with all the relevant laws. However, this does not absolve the driver, who also has the responsibility to make the necessary checks.

Generally, a driver must ensure that his vehicle complies with all usage requirements, which include registration and licensing requirements. Other requirements include, for example, complying with the vehicle's maximum laden weight, ensuring the vehicle does not emit smoky exhaust and is properly lit, as these would impact on the safety or comfort of other road users.

There are parallel responsibilities placed by the law on the owner and the driver. However, Sir, if an employee-driver is able to offer mitigating factors for his offence, the authority will review his case.

Finally, Sir, on the question of electric vehicles raised by Mrs Lim, I would like to thank her for her suggestion. But, as she is aware, the Green Vehicle Rebates for hybrid and electric cars were implemented at the beginning of this year, basically, to allow people who want to buy such vehicles. The rebates are intended to lower the upfront and annualised cost differential between green and conventional cars. With these rebates and their lower fuel costs, the annualised operating cost of green cars will be comparable to that of conventional cars.

It is not our intention to make green cars cheaper than conventional cars as the primary strategy of vehicle ownership still holds. But within this framework, we are prepared to introduce rebates to try to lower the tax component, so that the cost differential between conventional and electric/hybrid vehicles is not too great.

On the question of extending the rebates to buses and taxis, LTA, in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, is prepared to consider this, if there are viable vehicle models for importing into our local transport market.

Sir, the Government will not intervene in the purchase decision of transport operators by stipulating what percentage of their fleet should be electric or hybrid vehicles, as such decisions are best left to the operators. If there are attractive models available in the market at prices that are acceptable to buyers, the demand will be there.

On the question of infrastructure, Sir, the Environment Ministry is the lead agency and, as I understand it, they will coordinate with other public sector agencies to provide an infrastructure, as and when the technology becomes commercially viable.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen: Will the Minister update the House on the performance of Changi Airport? It used to be a yearly ritual that we will listen once again to the accolades it has won, or survey results showing how well it is received by business travellers. How does Changi Airport stand, in competition with the regional airports in Hong Kong, Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur? Does the Alliance grouping of airlines affect in any way our airport's standing? Given also the prospect of longer-range and faster planes, will the dying of distances have a likely impact on Changi Airport?

I would also request the Minister to give an update to the House on Terminal 3 and how he sees the traffic build-up on the demand side for airport services.

The Chairman: Mr Chay, would you like to proceed to the next topic?

Mr Chay Wai Chuen: Thank you, Sir. On port competition, I wish the Minister can update the House on the state of competition faced by PSA around this region. We have read of the recent developments of Tanjung Pelapas and Westport in Malaysia. It must be fair to say that Tanjung Pelapas has made quite some progress since they had their first major customer drawn away from the PSA. Would the Minister inform the House what is the percentage size of this revenue loss from the Maersk pull-out? What about the significant downstream cost and impact of this loss of business? Could PSA have averted the loss of the world's No. 1 shipping line as customer, if it had accommodated the customer's need? For example, we hear of privatised berth operation as a reason, correct me if I am wrong.

Many shipping MNCs have a need for integrated supply chain logistics operations, and these require some degree of control of costs and schedules for their supply chain rationalisation. Such a need may indeed be a justifiable one for shipping lines. Are we answering to this need?

PSA did $2.4 billion of turnover in the year 2000, with $1.4 billion of pre-tax profits. That is a lot of room for competition.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: (In Mandarin): Sir, all along, Singaporeans have taken pride in our port. For two years running, PSA has won the honour of being ranked the best seaport because of the hard work put in by the PSA staff. The efficiency of the port has won acclaim from all.

As it is said, "It is not easy to be No. 1, but maintaining the leading position is even harder." Today, we are facing tremendous competition. This is particularly so when 80% of our business comes from transhipment services. There is no monopoly in this business, and no shippers are duty-bound to stay loyal to any particular port. Shipping companies can transfer their business to any port, depending on the price, service levels, convenience and preference.

That Maersk SeaLand sang "Goodbye, My Love" to PSA last year, is only one example. Though the company is contemplating coming back to us, this does not change the fact that we continue to face very keen competition in the business. One real-life example is if 3 million TEUs are handled by Malaysian ports, there will be a drop of 16% in the volume of cargoes handled by our port. Even if shipping companies do not intend to go to other ports, they will ask for more discounts and better rates by applying the pressure of competition. West Port has declared that within the region, their port was next to none, and Tanjung Pelapas said that it was the best alternative port and it intended to surpass PSA to become the darling of the maritime industry. Countries such as Indonesia and Sri Lanka are also trying to become the transhipment hub of the region.

Sir, I have confidence in PSA, but I hope that Government would take heed of the tremendous competition faced by our port. We have to pay special attention to this as it concerns the job security of the staff and workers who work in the shipping, stevedoring and logistics industries. I hope the Government will formulate policies and measures to help us maintain our superiority in our sea port. I would like to ask: should the Government build a Jurong Port when PSA is already facing strong competition from other ports in the region? 2.30 pm

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Mr Chay asked for an update on the performance of Changi Airport and how does it rate versus the other airports, and whether the membership of the airline alliances has helped Changi Airport and the impact of the new long-distance planes that are appearing over the horizon. He has also asked for an update on Terminal 3.

Sir, Changi Airport continues to do very well. Last year, the passenger movements at Changi Airport grew by 9.8%, to a total of 28.6 million passengers. Cargo also grew very strongly by 12.1%, to a total of 1.7 million tonnes. These were the highest numbers in terms of passengers and cargo movement ever handled by Changi Airport in a year. In addition, Changi Airport won 16 best airport awards from international travel and industry surveys in 2000, and this includes the UK Business Traveller Best Airport award for a record 13th time. Changi Airport continues to do well.

In terms of competition, Changi Airport is facing tough competition because several new airports have opened up in the region. At the same time, we are continuing to see new airports being proposed. This means that Changi Airport would have no choice but to continue innovating and upgrading its wide range of services in order to remain competitive.

In terms of ratings, Changi Airport continues to rate very well against new airports in the region. The fact that we have several alliances flying through Singapore has also helped Changi Airport to register very strong growth. We hope to continue anchoring those airline alliances in Singapore.

Sir, one of Changi Airport's strengths is its ability to expand facilities ahead of demand and this allows the Airport to provide a high level of service to both the airlines and their passengers. In line with their strategy, we are expanding Changi Airport by adding the third terminal. Mr Chay has also asked for some updates.

Sir, construction work on Terminal 3 has started in October last year. Tenders for the superstructure would be invited in the third quarter of this year and we expect Terminal 3 to be ready in the year 2006. When completed, Terminal 3 will have a handling capacity of 20 million passengers. This will bring Changi Airport's total handling capacity to 64 million passengers. This will allow us to meet very comfortably the needs of the aviation industry for many years to come.

In terms of the long-distance planes and the impact on Changi Airport, the key is connectivity through Changi Airport. If we have the connectivity, then it makes good reason for the planes to land in Singapore in order to use Singapore to re-distribute their passengers throughout the region. And I think the passenger load in the entire region is still very significant. Even though we have the long-distance planes, I would still see Singapore and Changi Airport remaining as a key aviation hub in the region.

Mr Chay asked about PSA. He asked about the state of competition versus PSA and the impact of the pull-out by Maersk on PSA. Sir, the competition for transhipment cargo has always been there, even before the building of Tanjung Pelapas. This is because the transhipment cargo does not really need to land in Singapore. They can be transhipped in many ports along the entire supply chain. It can be in Kaoshiung, and also as far away as Malta and Sri Lanka. It does not have to be transhipped just at our neighbouring ports.

PSA has been meeting the competition very successfully all these years and they have done it through a combination of well-developed facilities and the use of advanced technology. This allows both PSA and the shipping companies using PSA to utilise technology to optimise their operations and to improve their productivity. PSA's competitive edge is not just pricing. PSA's pricing is not the lowest. You would have read in the papers that many of the ports in the region do offer rates that are perhaps down to half the price of PSA. It is not pricing alone. It is, at the end of the day, the total value-added that PSA can bring to the business table and that includes the technology part and systems part that help the shipping companies derive value from the services that PSA is giving.

In terms of Maersk's pull-out, Maersk made up about 10% of PSA's throughput. No doubt, the pull-out by Maersk would impact PSA somewhat. Over time, the growth of businesses from the other customers will help to offset the loss of business from Maersk, but PSA is not sitting still. Members would have read in the papers last week that PSA and Maersk had entered into a new agreement which would still see some of the major ships from Maersk calling in Singapore. I think this will help bring back part of the Maersk's business to PSA.

On dedicated terminals, whether this is a factor in companies thinking about leaving Singapore and is this part of the supply chain factor, I would say that dedicated terminals are useful in cases where the port is a gateway port, ie, there is no need for connectivity. The ship just comes in, unloads, the containers and cargoes are then distributed by land to the hinterland. In the case of PSA, the bulk of the business involves transhipment. So connectivity between lines, connectivity with regional shipping companies to tranship to the regional markets, all these are very important. In the case of Singapore, we have the added element that we are really very short of space. We need to optimise the available space that we have here. Therefore, PSA's common user terminal operation allows us to optimise the use of the limited land that we have, and yet, at the same time, achieve a very high productivity and a very high throughput. This gives us tremendous economies of scale, as well as the shipping connectivity, which is why the common user terminal approach has been a very effective competitive tool utilised by PSA.

Mr Chay also commented on PSA's profit. I think his implication is that it is very high and that this would lead to even greater competition. Let me put this in perspective because I think it is very important. PSA handled a record of 17 million TEUs last year and even then, the revenue fell by 3.3%. As a group, PSA's after-tax profit increased by 11.7% to $838 million. I think Mr Chay mentioned the before-tax figure. This increase in profit can be attributed, amongst others, to improved productivity from PSA's port operations.

The container port is a highly capital intensive one and PSA therefore needs to invest in costly infrastructure and highly sophisticated equipment in order to achieve the high service levels and the productivity expected by its many customers. PSA's fixed assets currently amount to some $6.8 billion and this investment is going to increase substantially in the years to come. I will give you an example. PSA now has about 36 berths. The new Pasir Panjang Terminal, Phases I and II, will have only 26 berths and yet the projected cost for these 26 berths will come to about $7 billion. The investment requirements are going to be even greater in the years to come. And yet, for all the risks that it has to undertake to put in all the huge investments, PSA's return on assets last year was only 12.3% which I think most analysts would agree it is not unreasonable.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked about Jurong Port. He also talked about the competition from Tanjung Pelapas and other ports and what would the Government do to help ensure PSA survives so that the jobs we have would not be lost. The only way for PSA to continue doing well is for it to keep on enhancing productivity through the greater use of technology and through better training of the workers. I think that is what PSA has been doing all these years. I am sure that PSA will continue to do so because they have very good people there, who are very skilled. They have a lot of expertise and they have been able to compete very effectively against regional and international competition. What we will do is that we will continue to encourage PSA to explore all the possible technologies that can be applied to the operation of the port and make sure that they continue training their workers so that they remain competitive.

In the case of Jurong Port, it has always been there. It is not a recent development. In fact, Jurong Port has been operating since 1965 and it competes with PSA for both the conventional bulk cargo as well as for a small number of container traffic. What Jurong Port has done recently is to purchase two container quay cranes in order to improve their productivity in handling the ships that bring in containers to Jurong Port. At the end of the day, the capacity will still be very small because the two quay cranes would only give Jurong Port a capacity of 200,000 TEUs a year versus PSA's over 17 million TEUs capacity a year. Jurong Port, in effect, will only be a small complement to PSA and it will not be a true competitor for the container business.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive answers and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (2), Mr Yeo.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Sir, the issue has been raised yesterday by other Members and answered by the Minister.

The Chairman: Mr Yeo is not moving. Mr Ang.

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Bukit Gombak): (In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head I of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code IA 1500.

Sir, in last year's Budget debate, I raised the issue that the elderly in Singapore, aged 60 years old and above, should be given full day bus concession. Although this was not fully accepted, I am very grateful to MCIT and the bus companies for advancing the hours on Saturdays, from 2 pm to 10 am. This revision was implemented smoothly without any hiccups.

At the moment, the use of concession cards for senior citizens is restricted to the off peak hours. They can only enjoy the concession after the peak period, from 10 am to 4 pm, and after 7 pm from Mondays to Fridays. On Saturdays, they can enjoy the concession after 10 am. On Sundays and public holidays, they enjoy whole day concession. Right now, we have about 370,000 senior citizens who had, during their younger days, contributed to the prosperity and progress of Singapore. Their welfare should be looked after with more objective measures, and transport concession is only one way to express our appreciation to them for their past contribution. I feel that we should relax the time limit for senior citizens so that they can enjoy concession for the whole day.

Sir, there are many reasons for my plea. First, the relaxation of concession will facilitate senior citizens to go out and take part in social and grassroots activities, and to visit their friends and relatives or to help their children to look after their grandchildren.

Secondly, the MCIT and the bus companies may be concerned that after the relaxation, senior citizens will travel more frequently during peak hours and the bus companies' income would be reduced. These senior citizens are taking buses not only when they are old. I think many of them had been taking bus services even during their younger days. They are life-time bus commuters!

Whole day concession has already been implemented in European countries - Canada and Hong Kong. The concession to senior citizens is only a small gesture of respect for them. It is not completely free. It is only a concession.

Sir, I hope MCIT and the bus companies can reconsider this issue. To start with, perhaps they can extend it further by one more hour, say, from 9 am, instead of 10 am. After all, after 9 am, it is not the peak period. Later on, they can monitor the situation and extend the concession period to the whole day.

Mr Thomas Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, first, let me declare that I am a member of the Public Transport Council, but I am not speaking on behalf of the Council.

On the topic of public transport for Jurong Island, I want to say that Jurong Island is an impressive development. Just looking at the sand that is poured into the sea to reclaim land, it must have cost billions of dollars - $5 billion or more. And just driving around looking at the oil refineries, chemical plants, petrochemical complexes and the utility providers, it must also amount to billions of dollars of investments - $10-$20 billion, a lot of investments. All these investments can only yield returns with the people who are working there.

Sir, I notice that lots of incentives and privileges are given to the companies in Jurong Island. However, on the question of public transport for the workers to man the plants and industries, more could be done. At the present moment, the public transport that goes there uses the farecard system. But our people who use the farecard have to pay 10 cents more than normal fares. And the reason is that the buses that ply there have to pay COE, and the workers pay for the COE. But for the rest of Singapore, because they are public roads, the SBS and TIBS buses do not have to pay for COE. I think this is an anomaly.

I have driven along Jurong Island. I do not see the roads in Jurong Island any different from the roads in Jurong Industrial Estate or, for that matter, the rest of Singapore. So why should Jurong Island workers have to pay for COE when the rest of us do not have to? Moreover, we say that we are going to have a world-class transport system. I think world-class transport system must include bringing workers to work as quickly as possible, as cheaply as possible and as safely as possible. And it must also mean allowing them to come home quickly.

Sir, I hope that there will be a review of the system and there will be improvements in the public transport for Jurong Island workers. And I hope it will be more convenient, cheap and more comfortable.

The Chairman: I want to inform hon. Members that we have fallen behind schedule again on this Head. Dr John Chen.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, Mr Ang Mong Seng has asked that the public transport concession rates for the elderly be extended either to 9.00 am or for the full day. The public transport operators had introduced concessionary travel for senior citizens to help defray transport costs for the elderly who are retired. The concessionary fares apply, therefore, only during off-peak hours to encourage senior citizens to travel during these times, instead of adding to the crowd going to and from work and school. This is because being retirees, they have greater flexibility in timing their travel. If they travel in great numbers during peak hours, then the bus companies will have to put on more buses because of the higher demand. That is costly. So I think it is a win-win situation under the current arrangement because the time of the retirees is more flexible and therefore they can take their time to travel during off peak hours and enjoy concessionary fares.

Nevertheless, the operators have been sympathetic to requests for the concessionary travel period to be extended. And as Mr Ang has mentioned, they have brought forward the starting time on Saturdays from 2.30 pm to 10.00 am. The public transport operators will continue to review the scheme from time to time, and to decide whether it is viable and sustainable in the long term to extend the concession to full day travel.

Mr Thomas raised the issue of public transport in Jurong Island. I would like to give the House the background. The PTC called for an open tender for bus services for Jurong Island, because of the unique transport demand pattern there. Services are concentrated within the peak periods with very little ridership outside the peak periods. Therefore, the PTC decided to call for an open tender, as an open tender would promote competition and ensure that the operator offers the most competitive rates for those travel demand patterns.

SBS won the contract to run the Jurong Island bus services, which commenced operations in June 2000. The contract is for three years with an option for a further extension of two years. SBS competed on the same basis as other tenderers with non-exempt COE buses. The other tenderers are private operators. And these buses are not COE-exempt, because the successful tenderer will not have universal service obligation. So we could have a private operator winning the tender and that private operator will not have to operate other routes that are not profitable, like the two public bus companies. The successful operator could also redeploy the buses for other uses outside the peak hours in order to reduce cost. This is the background to what has happened.

Sir, I would like to inform the Member that the PTC will review the matter nearer the expiry of SBS' contract. I know what the Member is requesting. He is requesting for the same fare like the other parts of Singapore and therefore it is 10 cents cheaper. We will ask the PTC to review the matter nearer the date. By that time, Jurong Island will also be more developed and the ridership position should have improved, and we will ask the PTC to review it favourably.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to provide an update to the House on the state of development of the Pasir Panjang Terminal. I understand the Terminal is built for 30 million TEU capacity. Please correct me if I am wrong. And with this capacity, including the current Keppel Terminal capacity, there will be considerable excess capacity. Will the Minister enlighten the House on how they intend to fully utilise this planned capacity in the two terminals? One is a newly built one and the other has been in existence for many years. Obviously, the armotisation and depreciation charges are different, but given the state of port competition internationally and regionally, what are the plans in respect of Pasir Panjang Terminal vis-a-vis Keppel Terminal?

Assoc. Prof. Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, Pasir Panjang Terminal first started operations in October 1997. Today, it has six berths with 15-metre draft which can handle the world's largest container ships. In 2000, Pasir Panjang Terminal handled 2 million TEUs, or about 12% of PSA's total container throughput.

The terminal uses cutting-edge technology such as remote Bridge Crane System which allows operators to control up to four Bridge Cranes via remote control at any one time, greatly boosting flexibility and productivity.

The Pasir Panjang Terminal will be further developed as the need arises. The total capacity of the terminal when fully developed is not 30 million, but 35 million TEUs. We will look at the demand for port services and see whether there is a need for further development.

Mr Ang Mong Seng: Sir, thank you for the replies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ong Kian Min: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head I of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code IE 3100.

The Minister of State, Dr John Chen, has already given us his answer to an earlier question raised by Prof. Chin Tet Yung on whether taxis should be allowed to drive in bus lanes during restricted hours. I would like to ask the Ministry to consider whether taxis could be allowed to go into the bus lanes, not to drive for long distances but just to pick up and drop off passengers. I raise this because, given the competition among taxi companies, complaints by customers are taken very seriously, recorded and demerit points given to taxi drivers who do not provide service according to customers' wishes. A taxi driver risks the cancellation of his taxi rental agreement if he is not up to stuff.

One of the complaints by customers is that taxi drivers do not pick them up or drop them off in the bus lane. This is compounded in situations where the bus lanes run for an entire stretch of the road. Some passengers do not or refuse to appreciate that it is against the law for taxi drivers to do so during restricted hours. This can result in a complaint being made against that taxi driver. The complaint may not be directly about not being picked up or dropped off in the bus lane. But when one is upset, it is easy to complain about rudeness, inconvenience or extra charges. At times, the taxi driver complies with the customer's request, goes into the bus lane and risks being caught, because he does not wish to be complained against.

Sir, it does not take much time for a taxi to enter the bus lane to pick up or to drop off passengers. I think this should also facilitate better taxi service and a more satisfied customer. I hope the Ministry will consider this.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, as I have explained to Prof. Chin just now why we could not allow taxis to use the bus lane not just for driving but even for picking up or dropping off passengers, because the number of buses using the bus lanes is voluminous. For instance, if we have 130 buses per hour, that is every half a minute there will be a bus travelling. And if you have 18,000 taxis, even for just picking up or dropping off passengers, it will affect the smooth flow of bus operation. So the answer is that we are not prepared at this point in time to allow taxis to pick up or drop off passengers in bus lane.

As for his concern about passengers wrongly accusing the taxi drivers just because the taxi drivers did not allow them to drop off in the bus lane, I can assure the Member that LTA investigates every complaint very carefully and will not press charges against the drivers for offences that are not committed by them.

Mr Ong Kian Min: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (4), Dr Toh See Kiat.

Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat (Aljunied): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head I of the Development Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code II 5200.

Sir, may I take my two cuts together?

The Chairman: Yes.

Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Sir, I just have five points to make where promoting e-commerce is concerned.

First, I would like to ask the Minister if funds for companies and trade associations to promote Singapore e-business and their own companies or to represent Singapore in international bodies like the International Chambers of Commerce and the United Nations' CEFACT; whether these funds could be used to help them represent Singapore just like TDB uses funds to promote Singapore business by Singapore companies.

Second question is: the National Trust Council has been announced by the Minister and this will promote Singapore as a trusted e-hub. I wonder if there are enough funds to make sure that the National Trust Council would operate to deliver such a very big task to success.

Third question, Sir, is: the content industry, which I mentioned yesterday, needs a lot of encouragement, grants and tax rebates. There are a lot of things that the content industry needs, for example, in film animation and perhaps even in electronic publications, grants and perhaps a more liberal seed funding and venture capital scheme, and venture capitalists could also be given tax breaks to allow them to absorb some of the losses that may happen in experimental ventures.

Fourth question, Sir: the policies we need to attract talent for this development of the IT and the content industry for e-commerce may need to be liberalised. We know that the Government has certain rules like if somebody is earning more than $3,500 a month, he probably gets an employment pass much easier. But I think we are pricing ourselves out of the market if we say that it has got to be $3,500 and no less.

Fifth question: I think competition rules have got to be stricter because sometimes the big boys may want to kill off the SMEs with their predatory practices and that the Singapore One highway is choked because there is only one access provider.

On the second cut on funding of IT projects, I have two questions for the Minister on the funds that VWOs and the People's Association would need to help bridge the digital divide, I hope that the Minister can give some idea of whether and how these funds could be channelled in that direction, so that the various groups of people who cannot access the Internet can be helped.

The second question, Sir, is particularly for those who are disabled. We have in our midst some people who are disabled and associations that help them to cope with life. IT is really one of the most important tools that they can use to help them live relatively normal lives. Some of the software and hardware used by the disabled are very expensive. I wonder if the Minister could help channel funds for these VWOs to help the disabled to help themselves.

Mr Lim Swee Say: Sir, Prof. Toh See Kiat brought up a few suggestions. The first is on promoting e-commerce. He asked whether funds allocated to trade associations can be used by them to promote Singapore companies overseas. I have no idea what specific aspects he is suggesting. Since trade promotion comes under TDB, he may want to take this up further with TDB and MTI.

Second, on trusted hub, he asked whether the National Trust Council would be given sufficient resources to perform its task. The National Trust Council has just been formed. They are now in the process of working out its workplan. In the event that the Council does require some funding support, my Ministry is prepared to consider.

Third, he asked if there is any incentive scheme for companies to go into film animation and so on. Sir, under the IBBMM (Interactive Broadband Multimedia programme), there is a sub-programme on New Media. These companies can apply to the MCIT for funding support under the New Media programme.

Prof. Toh asked if the losses by venture capitalists can be offset. Sir, policy on venture capital fund comes under the purview of MTI and EDB. He may wish to bring this up to MTI and EDB.

Sir, he asked whether IT talent earning less than $3,500 would be allowed to come into Singapore. I am not aware of such a policy on the $3,500 cut-off. Again if there is any specific incidence, he is most welcome to bring to my attention, and I will look into it further.

The last point he asked is whether we have in place some competition rules to make sure that the big players do not penalise the new start-ups, the SMEs and so on. Under the code of practices for open competition, IDA does regulate big telecom companies from two angles. Firstly, the network must be able to inter-operate. Secondly, we do require open access to all infrastructures. So in the event that you hear of any SMEs that are being penalised by the big telcos, you are most welcome to bring up to the attention of IDA. As a regulator, they would look into the specific incidence under the code of practices for open competition.

On digital divide, Prof. Toh asked whether there is any funding support for the VWOs to implement programmes targeted at the disabled Singaporeans. Sir, I am happy to say that there is indeed a programme where IDA works with NCSS to provide funding support to refurbish used PCs and develop software and applications targeted at the disabled people. I assure him that more funding support will be forthcoming as and when the need arises. At this moment, there is funding support available and the funding has not been fully used up yet.

Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether we should be looking at a legal regime for competition and whether, even if not, there should be some kind of watchdog body other than IDA that will specifically be looking at telecommunications competition.

Mr Lim Swee Say: Sir, IDA is exactly the kind of body. IDA is both a regulator and a developer of the telecommunications market. As far as telecommunication is concerned, the competition code is already in place.

Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $468,838,020 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $1,709,558,700 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head E -

The Chairman: Head E - Judicature. Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head E of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code EA 1500.

My question to the Minister, or whoever answers this, is: do we really have to charge the fees in court that we are at present charging? At one time, it used to be said in Britain that the doors of the courts there were as open as the Savoy, which was a very expensive hotel in the Strand in those days. Are we going to say that our court doors are also open to the public, just as Raffles Hotel is open to the public for them to go in and use the hotel?

Sir, justice must be made available to all members of the public, that goes without saying. If it is not, then it is a denial of justice to a substantial sector of our people. If I may just quote a few fees at random. If you want to take an appeal from the Subordinate Courts to High Court - it is a civil appeal - you have to pay $600, just to file a Notice of Appeal. I do not know why that is necessary - $600 to file a Notice of Appeal. And if you take an appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, it is $1,000 to file the Notice of Appeal. That is not all. If you want to make an application to the Court of Appeal, an interlocutory application concerning the appeal that you have before the Court of Appeal, then it is $1,000 again; and similarly with the Subordinate Courts, if you wish to make an application.

Then in an appeal to the Court of Appeal, a sum of $3,000 has to be paid to file your case to be argued before the Court of Appeal. May I know what is the justification for these fees in our courts? Are the courts in business? Have they been told that they must pay their way for the work they do, or is it the policy of this Government to see that everyone, regardless of his wealth, regardless of his income, is able to take his complaint or grievance to the courts and as cheaply as is possible? Justice is an important factor and has a very important role in keeping the society together. If a number of people feel denied of justice because they cannot afford the fees to take their cases to the courts, then clearly, they will be right in saying, in Singapore, it is very difficult to get any justice. 3.15 pm

So may I know from the Minister, or whoever is replying, what is the justification, what is the rationale, for these high fees in the courts?

Finally, may I ask why - I asked this of the Deputy Prime Minister and he says, "you better table another question", I do not know why - is it that the courts refuse to accept cash in payment of these fees? It makes it more difficult, more inconvenient for people if they do not have a cash card or a credit card. Cash is legal tender. Why are the courts refusing to accept cash, making it more difficult for the public?

The Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Sir, Singapore is not the only country that charges court fees. It is done in other countries as well. Australia does it. Other countries which are not doing it are also considering doing it, for example, Malaysia. I think charging court fees is the thing to do because judicial resources are scarce. For example, if one appeals to the Court of Appeal, it is three High Court judges sitting over the appeal.

The other point is hearing fees. In so far as hearings are concerned, court fees are only charged after the first hearing day.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I was not referring to that.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: For Court of Appeal cases, it is the same thing. They only charge after the first hearing day. In fact, charging court fees have a salutary effect.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I clarify?

The Chairman: Order. Are you giving way?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: No, Sir. I have got only two minutes.

The Chairman: Resume your seat, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have to clarify because it is a question ---

The Chairman: Resume your seat, Mr Jeyaretnam. Carry on, Prof. Ho.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: So charging court fees in fact has a salutary effect of getting our lawyers to be more prepared for trials, and that has helped to shorten the long backlog of cases that we once had.

In a study done by the Supreme Court on costs in our courts, it was found that court fees only constitute about 8% of the total costs borne by litigants because legal fees are expensive. There are also other disbursements. Sir, I do not think having to pay court fees will discourage any litigant from going to court.

The point of course is, with the vast array of alternative dispute resolution processes available, one can, instead of dragging out one's case in court, turn to these alternatives. Even for appeals from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, like I have said, in a civil case, the Court of Appeal will sit with three judges. Even if you pay $3,000 to have your case heard, and $10,000 security for costs, I think it is justified.

The Chairman: Order. It is "guillotine" time. Mr Jeyaretnam, can you withdraw your amendment?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $74,630,950 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $24,282,100 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head B -

The Chairman: Head B - Attorney-General's Chambers. Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head B of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

This concerns the decision of the Public Prosecutor whether to prosecute or not to prosecute. This question is prompted by the questions that I have raised in this House no less than three times. The first, of course, was the decision of the Public Prosecutor not to prosecute the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Ministers and others who, we say, quite clearly broke the law on Polling Day. I know there was an answer given, but that was given by the Minister of State, I think. But the Minister of State can only guess at the reasons behind the decision of the Public Prosecutor. It is time that the Public Prosecutor, when the public interest demands a prosecution, that he explains why he has decided not to prosecute. What are the reasons?

It comes to my mind some time ago when the Attorney-General of Malaysia had to hold a press conference to explain why he did not prefer charges against the former Chief Minister or Head of Malacca State. Should not the Public Prosecutor here be also required to explain?

The two other cases are, of course, the case of the shooting of the man in Seletar Hill Road.

The Chairman: Mr Jeyaretnam, are you expecting a reply?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, I am.

The Chairman: We are approaching "guillotine" time.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Perhaps, I will carry on and then just withdraw my amendment, because I know what the replies will be.

The Chairman: You do not want to have a reply. All right.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have asked then and the answer was that the police had not committed any offence. I pointed out the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code ---

The Chairman: Mr Jeyaretnam, can I ask you to return to your seat? I think in fairness, Prof. Ho Peng Kee would like to say something.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right, Sir.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, unlike Mr Jeyaretnam, I would not ramble because the answer is in the Hansard. If you look at the Hansard two years ago, he raised the same topic and the Minister for Law gave a full reply. I think it is very clear. If you look at Article 35 of the Constitution, it clearly states that the AG has got the discretion to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings. And it must be so because he is independent. He does not want his decision to be subject to scrutiny either in this House or out of this House.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why should it not be?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: It should not be, because you cannot say in one breath that constitutionally he has the discretion and, yet, in the same breath, subject all his decisions to scrutiny. This is not the practice only in Singapore, it is also so in other countries.

The Chairman: Mr Jeyaretnam, can you withdraw your amendment?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $44,119,790 for Head B ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $5,161,100 for Head B ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The Chairman: I propose to take the tea break now.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.45 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.25 pm until 3.45 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.45 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head S -

The Chairman: Head S, Ministry of Law, Amendment No. (1). Prof. Chin Tet Yung.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head S of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, this year's Budget makes several systemic changes to the tax structure. It is one that will help to transform Singapore's economy to a knowledge-based one. Staying competitive and well-trained, indeed, retrained - that is the message to all who seek to benefit from this year's Budget, whatever sector they may be in.

Sir, this is also the focus that the GPC for Law will be taking in this Committee of Supply. Members in the GPC will be covering issues that involve the supply of lawyers, training and retraining for lawyers in the new economy, and the cost of access to legal services. At the end of the day, we are aiming for a strong legal system which is not just efficient or high-tech, but one that delivers justice to all who seek it, whether they be foreign or local, poor or rich, at reasonable cost. Indeed, the need for a strong legal system is paramount to a knowledge-based and globalised economy.

Confidence and trust in the legal system is generated not only in the accolades given to it by outside agencies, although the positive reviews of the judiciary and the legal system generally do Singapore proud. It lies in the impact that it has over the lives of those who come before it; it lies in the unrepresented defendant, for example, who, after his day in court, accepts the decision, regardless of the consequences to him; it lies in the feelings of the divorced couple, that after all is said and done, they felt that it was the best that could be expected from a broken relationship; it lies in the mouth of the foreign CEO of a multinational corporation who, after resolution with a dispute with a local company, nonetheless professes his confidence and trust in the Singapore legal system, whether the outcome of the case is favourable or not to him or his corporation. Such confidence, Sir, can only be obtained if the system itself were to constantly upgrade, especially in a changing world. Lawyers must be seen to represent clients' interests soundly and firmly, judges must be seen to dispense justice fairly, the cost of access to justice must not be so prohibitive as to deny parties from their day in court.

Sir, we need to ensure that there are sufficient lawyers in Singapore, such that costs are kept at a reasonable level. At the same time, there must be a realisation that, with globalisation, there is a demand for Singapore lawyers beyond our shores. Law graduates are also in demand in jobs outside of the legal sector. Legal training provides a certain measure of versatility. This is reflected in the large proportion of law graduates who do not enter into the profession and legal service, despite the relatively high salaries for newly qualified lawyers. For those who are in the profession, there is a need to ensure that they are constantly retraining, so that they can better serve the demands of a knowledge-based economy.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what is the legal framework that has been put in place to facilitate the growth of Singapore's knowledge-based economy. What are the plans for increasing the number of lawyers in Singapore so as to alleviate the tight market conditions that are now prevailing? Would the Minister support the development of a Technology Law and Policy Centre that could spearhead the development of Singapore as a hub for high-tech legal services? I ask this because there is a need to have a catalyst for legal training and legal research, especially in the areas of information technology law, telecommunications law and biotechnology law. Such a centre may be located at a local university, but linked to other institutions such as the Academy of Law and the Law Society. Together, such an institution can focus on developing Singapore's position as a centre for high quality legal services. Such a centre can assist also in the formulation of legal policies for the knowledge-based economy.

Sir, everyone in Singapore has been urged to adjust to the demands of a knowledge-based economy. The legal system and the legal profession are not immune from the transition, and Singapore's laws and its legal institutions must respond swiftly to the challenges ahead.

Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Sir, first, let me declare my interest. I am a lawyer practising in the area of intellectual property law and have clients who would benefit from a change in law. But I speak with a conviction that what I say is critical to our national interest.

We are on the brink of a new millennium and heading into the New Economy, where knowledge is wealth and intangible intellectual property is more valuable than physical property. For the New Economy, we must have a legal system which strongly protects the fruits of the mind.

To the Government's credit, much of our intellectual property laws have been reformed to bring them up to date with the advances in the rest of the world. We have also set up special teams in the police to deal with intellectual property offences, as we realise that good laws are only platitudes if not strictly enforced.

Every year, the EDB and the TDB work hard to bring investors and traders to Singapore, and many come along with their intellectual assets. Yet our image in the world is still not very good. Though we are no longer the piracy capital of the world, we are still seen as a place where the long arm of the law seems to be impotent against those who steal intellectual property rights (IPRs). This is regarded as due to a lack of will, as we boast one of the best police forces in the world.

The stock answers given to investors who call for stricter intellectual property laws and concerted police action are:

1. We have laws as good as any in the world.

2. We allow intellectual property owners to take prosecutorial action or civil suits, on their own initiative, to obtain redress in our very efficient courts.

3. We are doing the best we can, but we are short-handed.

4. Our policemen do not know how to identify whether an item has breached anybody's IPRs and, indeed, probably these are very true.

But in a country where law and order is almost a religion, and the police have the enviable position of advertising "Low crime does not mean no crime", and where respect for the police is very high, it is odd that they are clueless and helpless when it comes to prosecuting intellectual property offences. This is simply not credible in the eyes of foreigners.

Every day, in the HDB estates, at various trade fairs and along the pathways leading to MRT stations - hawkers sell pirated films, softwares, music CDs, DVDs, VCDs, etc, on makeshift stalls in broad daylight. Others sell pirated hardware, such as mobile telephones. The pirates are also very extremely mobile and disappear very quickly when the law looms near. Yet others operate blatantly from permanent premises in shops and booths in shopping malls. Their goods are ridiculously cheap and packaged in flimsy fashion. Is it so difficult to ascertain that their goods have infringed the law?

Perhaps it is time to change our intellectual property laws radically. We can build in a rebuttable presumption that those who sell products at ludicrous prices in packaging which is makeshift are selling pirated wares or, perhaps, the presumption kicks in the moment the IPR owner makes a statutory declaration to that effect.

The burden is then on the pirates to prove that they have the copyright owner's licence or that they are the copyright owners themselves. On top of that, we can impose a sort of occupier's liability on landlords and tenants who rent out or sublet premises to others who are pirates or who are found to be selling or manufacturing pirated goods. And when they are convicted, they must be made to pay fines as serious as those in the Computer Misuse Act, and even given long imprisonment terms. And they must be made to pay royalties to the rightful IPR owners, with interest.

It is no longer a good excuse to say, "No other country in the world has such laws, so we cannot be so draconian." If we aspire to be a developed country, then we must realise that no other developed country has so extensive a problem of piracy as we do. They are out there in the streets every day. And we cannot say we have no precedent in our law; the immigration laws come immediately to mind.

If we agree that this problem is serious and we want to do something about it, we must seize the bull by the horns. We must rid our nation of this blight and threat to the survival of the New Economy.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (East Coast): Sir, three days ago, the tabloid Today had an article on its front page headlined "Lawyers Go for Hong Kong Dollars: Higher Pay Draws Singaporeans to Hong Kong." Of late, there have been various reports in the media concerning the shortage of lawyers in Singapore. There are also reports of a large number of young lawyers leaving the profession as a result of the very stressful work, and of a lawyer even becoming a car salesman.

Sir, the legal service is an important component of business and financial transactions. Hence, we have to ensure that there are enough lawyers of the right calibre to provide the necessary support for our growing economy. Also, in the light of the trend towards globalisation and the need to bring in a wide range of expertise and experience, will the Government consider recognising law degrees other than those from the United Kingdom? Given the increasing complexity of issues which lawyers have to deal with in this fast-changing world of business, will the Government also consider recognising joint degrees instead of pure law degrees?

Mr S. Iswaran (West Coast): Sir, I find myself in the unusual position of arguing for more lawyers in Singapore. Nevertheless, I think there is a clear need for a sufficient number of lawyers, and of the right quality, to maintain Singapore's position as a premier financial and business hub. And, there is both a quantitative and a qualitative dimension to this need.

On the quantitative side, as Mr Chng Hee Kok has also mentioned, media reports would suggest that there is a squeeze on the number of lawyers in Singapore, partly because several young lawyers are leaving the profession and it would also manifest itself in the rising starting pay of lawyers. Meanwhile, the demand for legal services has been rising, in tandem with our growth, both economically and in specific niche areas. These, and also the phenomenon of globalisation, would mean that more lawyers trained in Singapore and practising in Singapore are in demand not just here but elsewhere as well. I believe, with more local firms striking alliances with international law firms, this will further accelerate that demand.

Sir, on the qualitative side, we need different types of lawyers. The plain vanilla litigator or corporate finance lawyer is, on one hand, important to the traditional legal businesses. On the other hand, as we go into the new economy, we need lawyers who have the knowledge in specific areas of science, engineering, and also in certain new areas but relating to these disciplines, such as intellectual property rights, those that come under the WTO arrangements, and the like.

In that context, Sir, our supply of lawyers in Singapore has been, to some extent, constrained. I know that in 1993, the Minister appointed a committee which recommended that, besides NUS law degrees, only law degrees from 15 UK universities be recognised for admission to the Singapore Bar. In addition, the graduates from the UK are required to attain at least a Second Upper Honours degree, while NUS graduates are required to attain at least a Second Lower Honours degree. I believe that the Committee also recommended that the situation be reviewed periodically. 4.00 pm

Sir, I gather that the Committee chaired by the Attorney-General has recently reviewed the situation and I understand that the Attorney General's Committee has submitted its report to the Government. May I ask the Minister what the recommendations of that Committee are and whether the Government will accept the recommendations. In particular, given the need for a wide range of expertise and experience in Singapore, can we broaden the pool of universities from which we recognise qualified lawyers? Also, can we exercise greater flexibility in recognising those who do dual degrees, perhaps in Science and Law, Engineering and Law, Accountancy and Law, and the like? Some institutions also offer shorter courses in law, a 2-year course or so, for those who already have a degree and professional experience but wanting to acquire the legal knowledge in order to better apply that in specific context. Would those be recognised?

Finally, Sir, recently, Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan suggested that law could be considered being offered as a post-graduate programme. I would like to know whether there are any developments in that regard.

The Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Sir, I will take the points raised by the GPC Chairman, Prof. Chin, Mr Iswaran and Mr Chng Hee Kok because they are related, and I will then reply to Prof. Toh See Kiat.

First, Prof. Chin asked about the framework of our legal system, what changes are we making to gear up for the new economy. Let me say first that, as a general principle in our approach to the legal system, we consider the legal system to be important, not just for our people's security, safety and resolution of disputes. A sound legal system - and by that, I mean all sectors, the private legal profession, the legal profession, the judiciary and the public sector's legal services - is a critical supporting pillar of our economic growth to ensure Singapore's competitiveness. A legal system, which has people in all sectors of competence, of integrity, with a sufficient number of skilled people, is essential. That has been our approach, and in response to Prof. Chin, I would say that it is probably even more important now when advances in technology and globalisation have transformed the way we live and work. He is right that no sector, and certainly not the legal sector, is immune from these changes. Therefore, I completely agree with him when he says that the legal system, if it is to play a role in the new economy, must be geared to meet the challenges ahead.

So, where do we start in explaining the various aspects of the framework which we are attending to? I will first start with the question of talents because if the legal system does not have enough skilled persons and sufficient numbers, it would not be able to rise to the challenge. Here is where I will deal with questions of supply of lawyers which all the three MPs have touched on.

Some years ago, with the Attorney General's Committee, which I would refer to as the first Committee, we revised the system on supply of lawyers and we had the system where 15 universities in the United Kingdom were recognised. For those who wish to practise law in Singapore, they must have a Second Class (Upper) Honours Degree and they must do a one-year Diploma course here. We also provided for NUS law graduates to practise law if they have a Second Class (Lower) Degree. Since some years had passed, we asked the Attorney-General to form a new Committee to review the situation and to propose changes necessary in the light of changing circumstances. The Attorney-General has presented the report of his Committee. Let me say that he found that there is now a current shortage of lawyers, largely due to increased demand for lawyers brought about by the formation of joint law ventures and formal alliances, as well as the fact that increased numbers of lawyers are leaving the profession, either to become in-house counsel or to pursue other careers.

Furthermore, based on projections concerning the size of the Singapore population and the growth of the economy in the coming years, the Committee concluded that there would be an increased demand for legal services over the next 10 years. To help meet the projected increase in demand, the Committee had recommended increasing the annual intake of law students from the NUS Law Faculty, as well as increasing the number of overseas universities whose law degrees would be recognised for the purposes of practising in Singapore.

To bring a wider range of perspective and experiences to our legal talent pool, the Committee has recommended to include some Australian and New Zealand universities among the overseas universities to be recognised. In addition to the 15 universities, other universities from the United Kingdom would be added to the list. In all, 19 United Kingdom universities, 4 Australian universities and 2 New Zealand universities will be recognised for this purpose. This meets the point raised by Mr Chng Hee Kok about other universities to be included.

Let me stress, and Mr Iswaran made an important point, that this exercise is not just about numbers. It must also be about quality. We must ensure that people of right standards and capabilities enter the legal profession. Therefore, we will continue to insist on Second Class (Upper) Honours Degree for graduates from the United Kingdom, and for the Australian and New Zealand universities, because not all of them grade their degrees in the same way as the United Kingdom universities, the Committee recommended that it requires graduates for purposes of practice to come within the top 30% of their graduating cohort. The Committee also made two other recommendations. First, it recommended the Board of Legal Education be allowed to recognise certain double degree programmes from scheduled universities for the purposes of admission to the Singapore Bar. I think this recognises the point made by Mr Iswaran about the complicated environment of the future where lawyers with inter-disciplinary backgrounds would be an asset.

The Committee also recognises the importance of the Board of Legal Education being given wider discretion to recognise as qualified persons those with multiple skills and wide range of experiences, which will be desirable for our legal sector. This can also be a route to help meet any short-term demand in any specific area of legal work.

I should inform the House that the Government has considered and accepted the Committee's report, the details of which will be released later today. These changes represent, in my view, a balanced and multi-pronged approach to ensuring that Singapore has sufficient legal resources to meet the continuing needs for its economy. While ensuring that our legal profession continues to take in talents and entrants of sufficiently high quality, we will continue to ensure that our legal sector will be able to play its part in supporting Singapore's growth and development.

Mr Iswaran also asked about law being a post-graduate degree. Let me say that no decision has been taken. It is true that Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Tony Tan made a speech which included this point. But he did not make a definitive proposal. I believe his intention was to provoke thought and discussion. I believe he was right in doing so because in the legal sphere, just as in other important areas of Singapore's development, it is absolutely important to re-examine fundamental assumptions on which we have operated for many years. In that context, we should see whether our scarce resources are being optimised to the fullest extent and is there a better way of doing things. In that context, we will examine whether the law degree should be a post-graduate degree, as well as any other possibilities. We will look at all the pros and cons. One important consideration, of course, is whether the course will be unduly long, given the present law course, and whether we can fine-tune it to achieve the benefits of a graduate legal education, for example, in the United States. Other aspects which we will consider will include the impact of graduate education on the quality of lawyers and the number of entrants to the legal profession.

There are other options, for example, of permitting law undergraduates to read law and non-law subjects leading, for example, to a double degree. We are still exploring all these possibilities and a decision is someway to go yet. As I have said, the key approach is not to assume that what we have been doing all these years and the way we have been doing it is sacrosanct. We must be prepared to examine all aspects.

Coming back to the point raised by Prof. Chin Tet Yung on other steps we have taken on our legal framework, I need to mention very quickly a major step we took last year about joint ventures and formal alliances. That was an important development to bring in top-tier legal talents from overseas to increase the pool of legal talents in Singapore. So far, eight joint law ventures and two formal alliances have been formed. Prof. Chin will also remember that in the course of last year, we have also allowed law firms to corporatise and to form themselves as corporations, and this would enable greater flexibility for them and in the short space of time since we announced it in October, at least four law corporations have been formed.

Also, an important development was the move we took on the recommendation of former Justice Goh Joon Seng's Committee to abolish the conveyancing scale of fees in two years' time. Apart from the fact that this will increase competition, it will also have the effect of increasing the overall efficiency of our law firms and we hope that more and more of our lawyers, who are highly skilled professionals, would shift their focus towards higher value-added work as conveyancing becomes simpler with technological advances.

Let me also say in response to Prof. Chin's comments on gearing ourselves to a knowledge-based economy that we have formed an inter-agency committee to coordinate efforts to develop competency and expertise in ICT law. The Committee will explore and develop new opportunities for ICT-related legal services and in positioning Singapore internationally as a reputable ICT law centre. In this regard, let me say that I would fully support the idea that he has raised of an IT and communication law centre in the NUS. I think this would be helpful in the overall scheme of gearing up our legal framework for the new economy.

Let me now touch on Prof. Toh See Kiat's points on intellectual property. I would say first that we are fully committed to the protection of intellectual property rights and we have developed a three-pronged strategy. First, to implement good legal framework to protect IP; second, to adopt effective deterrence and enforcement against piracy; and third, to educate consumers and inculcate in our public a culture of respecting intellectual property rights. He says that our image in the world is still not very good. I am not sure I agree with him because we have been consistently rated as having one of the best IP regimes in the region. In fact, according to the ASEAN-Pacific Legal 500, an independent survey of regional legal markets, Singapore has the strongest and best enforced IP regime in Southeast Asia. He also said that the long arm of the law in Singapore is impotent and the police are clueless and helpless in prosecuting IP offences. I am not sure I can agree with that either. Of course, we do not rest on our laurels but he should know that in order to undertake sustained and enhanced approach against IP violations, the police set up an Intellectual Property Rights Branch (IPRB), and the facts are that the IPRB has smashed seven syndicates island wide, seized more than $16 million worth of pirated articles and arrested 187 persons. This compares favourably with the statistics in previous years. Together with these improved enforcement measures, the Singapore courts continue to impose stiff penalties for copyright and trade mark infringements. Offenders are consistently given jail sentences of three months to four years, and fines ranging from $15,000 to $1.5 million. 4.15 pm

As for his points about enforcement at trade fairs, these are licensed by the Ministry of the Environment, which specifically imposes conditions against such malpractices. If he or any other Members in the House know of such violations at trade fairs in their constituencies, I hope they bring it to the attention of the authorities. But when action is taken, I do hope Prof. Toh See Kiat and other Members do not then write in to the Minister appealing for waiver of the summonses.

Another measure taken is the establishment of a new statutory board called the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS), details of which were given in the Second Reading speech on the Bill here.

Finally, we have to raise IPR awareness, and this is being done not only by IPOS, but also IPOS in conjunction with other international organisations in organising workshops, seminars and so on.

Prof. Toh See Kiat made some proposals on changing our laws. I am always open to suggestions but, at this stage, I can only give preliminary response to some of his points. He wanted landlords to be made liable for letting their premises to be used for selling pirated goods. I am not sure we really would want to expect landlords to constantly monitor the activities of their tenants. Whether we should go so far as the Member proposes, to impose the liability on landlords, is something we have to very carefully consider. And if I may take the analogy of theft, since IPR piracy has always been made an analogy with theft, there is presently no landlord liability provision concerning sale of stolen goods.

He has also proposed introducing presumptions, eg, if somebody is selling IPR goods at very low prices, he is deemed to be engaging in piracy. Here again, we will consider his suggestion, but I would be very careful in making such a wide presumption that might affect legitimate business activities.

Sir, in order to give time for the other cuts, I will pause here and let other Members speak.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, one of the desired outcomes stated in the Budget for the Ministry of Law is accessibility to justice for persons of limited means. This is the basis for Singapore's Legal Aid Bureau under the Ministry of Law.

Sir, as I said earlier, the quality of a legal system is to be found in how accessible it is to those who seek justice. If costs are prohibitive for people of limited means, then the legal system will mean little, no matter how up-to-date it is.

Singapore, in the last decade, has seen impressive improvements in the legal infrastructure. The use of technology has made Singapore's courts the envy of many in the world. Added to that have been significant changes in the approaches to the settlement of disputes, whether they be commercial or personal, criminal or civil. The quality of young men and women going into the law is among the best in Singapore. But all this comes at a cost. As Singapore's legal system and procedures develop, we see also rising costs. Lawyers now cost more. Global competition reduces supply and drives demand for lawyers. Procedures are more elaborate. Take a simple case in the Family Division. An uncontested divorce can now cost a couple of thousand dollars at least. A contested one many times more.

There are now mediation sessions to resolve matrimonial disputes. If lawyers are present, they will charge for the time spent. Costs increase even though mediation may be free. It is not as if Singapore has a very sophisticated system of dealing with matrimonial disputes. In other jurisdictions, for example, child counsellors are employed to assess what would be the best solution to the dispute from the viewpoint of the child. Here, more often than not, the judge has to interview the child or children himself or herself. If we institute such a system, costs will undoubtedly increase further.

Sir, my GPC colleagues will elaborate further on the issue of legal aid. But suffice it to say that one measure of the quality of a legal system lies in its ability to cater to as many of those who seek its assistance. I hope that the Minister will consider ways and means to improve the access to legal services by reviewing the means test, so as to allow more lower income people to be assisted by the Legal Aid Bureau. Currently, the disposable income limit is $7,000. Given the rise in income levels in Singapore in recent years, I would like to suggest that it should easily be doubled, say, to $14,000, and that there should be a corresponding increase in legal officers assigned to the Legal Aid Bureau.

Finally, Sir, permit me to acknowledge in this House the real contributions of the dedicated officers in the Legal Aid Bureau, who often work long and hard to help those who are in real need of their assistance. They perform both social and professional duties with dedication and enthusiasm.

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah): Sir, the legal aid provided for those who cannot afford legal fees is an essential service for the lower income group of Singapore citizens. However, there are many cases where Singaporeans need legal advice and yet fail to qualify for the means test, as set out by the Legal Aid and Advice Act. Although the maximum sum of annual income of $7,000, excluding deductible items such as personal and CPF deductions, works out to be the maximum a person earns that can qualify for legal aid to be slightly over $1,000 per month, this is often found to be too low. Because after having to pay HDB instalments or rental and providing for monthly expenses and children's support, he or she would have hardly any money left for legal fees, especially now that the legal fees in the private sector have increased considerably.

Sir, I would like to request the Minister to consider raising the capping of the income limit. Perhaps the Minister should also consider, even after raising the income limit, exercising flexibility on a case-by-case basis, accept deserving cases as the fee one has to pay for engaging private lawyers will still be way beyond some who earn above such limit. I think Prof. Chin has just outlined the high cost of engaging lawyers in legal cases.

I would also like to request the Minister to consider strengthening the Legal Aid Bureau, as it may need more manpower to assist those who need help, even after the case has been settled in court. I have often come across cases in my meet-the-people sessions where even after the victim has received court judgement, he still requires the services of a lawyer to take follow-up action to ensure that the court order is being enforced when the other party defaults, and the victim is at a loss as to whom to turn to and how to proceed in order to have the court order enforced.

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Sir, I would like to declare my interest as an advocate and solicitor, and that I would have an interest in what I am about to say.

The issue of the extent to which we extend legal aid to Singaporeans has been discussed several times in this House. I think the primary concern is essentially whether or not the means test under the Legal Aid and Advice Act is something which puts many Singaporeans out of reach of legal assistance from the State. This issue was raised last year and the Minister, in his reply, said that the allowance given is adequate because if you put in the various deductions, Singaporeans earning $1,200 may qualify for legal aid.

Sir, we all know that, and as was indicated and said earlier by my colleague, Prof. Chin, Singaporeans are earning higher wages, and certainly it is not uncommon for Singaporeans to earn more than $1,200 a month. At the same time, legal fees have actually gone substantially higher than before. A three-day trial in a subordinate court can easily set a party back by $10,000, and even higher if the party has to bear the other side's legal cost as well. And in our legal system, in the context of criminal prosecution where a party is able to successfully defend against a charge against him, the ability to recover his legal fees is limited indeed.

Because of the high cost involved in getting legal representation, many Singaporeans refrain from seeking legal assistance, if they can help it. Or they are just not in a position to do so because of lack of resources. What happens then is that access to justice is limited to those with ability to pay, and is denied to those who cannot afford it. In short, those who are charged for criminal offences may take the convenient route of pleading guilty, just to get on with their lives. I therefore would like to urge the Minister to consider making legal aid more flexible by perhaps giving more discretion to the Director of Legal Aid to consider each case on its own merits, and not just using the means test as a main factor in deciding whether or not one qualifies. For instance, a person can be earning more than $3,000 a month, but may be supporting a large family, leaving him with a limited disposable income for any form of funding for his legal requirements.

Secondly, an intermediate assistance scheme where some form of subsidy may be considered. Presently, the Act does provide some form of co-payment. However, this is not commonly known and if the Director can establish certain guidelines and criteria for such form of assistance and have this widely publicised, I think it will allow more members of the public to gain access to legal aid. I would therefore urge the Minister to consider these recommendations.

Mr K. Shanmugam (Sembawang): Sir, for sometime now, there has been considerable discussion about mandatory jail sentences for landlords whose tenants are illegal immigrants. I have asked the Clerk of Parliament to distribute Tables A to E, but given the shortage of time, I am not going to go through them, but they compare sentencing in the context of the Immigration Act contrasted with other Acts.

The point, Sir, as I have listed in Table A, the offences for which mandatory sentences have been set out are very grave - mutiny, kidnapping, violent rape and so on. When it comes to other offences, judges have the discretion on the sentence to be imposed. And in my view, the Immigration Act represents a serious erosion into that principle. The point is that our landlords are to be classified with mutineers, kidnappers and so on.

What are the justifications for mandatory jail sentence for Singaporeans, in respect of this sort of offences? The three main ones that have been given are:

(i) that illegal immigrants pose serious social problems;

(ii) that judges are easily swayed by defendants giving

"excuses"; and

(iii) that a deterrent effect is needed.

I would say that each of these three reasons can be challenged. First, that illegal immigrants pose a serious social problem. Agreed, but that does not automatically mean that every landlord who may have been negligent goes to jail. The flaw with this argument is that it confuses the offence with the offender.

When punishing someone for an offence, there are always two factors to take into account:

(i) the nature of the offence; and

(ii) the particular circumstances of the offender.

What mandatory sentencing does is to remove one of these two factors from the equation. And the question is: is that justified? That is why we have church deacon, illiterate and widowed old ladies and otherwise morally faultless young accountants going to jail. Surely, we need to be able to consider the circumstances of the individual offender. And I quote the Chief Justice when he had to dismiss the church deacon's appeal. He said, "I feel sorry for the people who are charged and convicted."

Sir, the second point I would make is that flexibility in sentencing and the ability to show mercy and compassion where appropriate is necessary for the proper functioning of the criminal justice system. Let me now turn to the second excuse that is often given, that judges are easily swayed by defendants giving excuses. Again, I have difficulties with that reasoning. We have to have faith in the judicial system's ability to mete out the appropriate punishment. And if a punishment is inappropriate, the prosecution can always appeal to the High Court, where the Chief Justice will hear the appeal.

I am confident that judges will be able to differentiate between those who deserve to go to jail and those who do not. 4.30 pm

Sir, I will now deal with the third reason that is often given.

It is said sometimes that deterrence is the reason for mandatory jailing. Again, I do not find that convincing. Deterrence is almost always an aim for punishment. But that does not mean automatically that you need to send people to jail, regardless of the degree of culpability.

Sir, the Straits Times has over the years been reporting all these cases, and you would have seen them - the church deacon, the accountant, the illiterate, the old lady, and so on. Do they need to go to jail in order for there to be deterrence? I think one can easily argue otherwise.

It is also said, well, the AG's Chambers will exercise its discretion not to prosecute in appropriate cases. Sir, you heard the Hon. Minister of State just now that the Chambers' exercise of discretion is not open to scrutiny. There is no accountability. How would the public know in which cases the Chambers choose to prosecute and which cases the Chambers do not choose to prosecute? That is why this sort of discussion is left to the judges who have to make their decisions public, publish the reasoning, and if somebody is not happy, either the prosecution or the accused can always appeal. Once you leave this sort of discussion to the prosecution, there is always a question of "has that discretion been exercised fairly".

Sir, I would say this legislation, which seeks to send a variety of people to jail without seeking to distinguish between those who are negligent and those who are morally culpable, has caused many right-thinking people to be concerned. And I listened with concern when hon. Members stand up and say, "Let's extend this to intellectual property rights. Let's punish other landlords." It is a type of thinking that could lead to a serious erosion.

Sir, I would ask that a change to the law be made as soon as possible. I note from the Straits Times that it was announced last year that the law was being reviewed, and I would hope that this be seriously considered.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, let me first deal with suggestions by Members to raise the legal aid means test.

Sir, the means test was last revised in October 1995. The key component is the applicant's disposable income, which is arrived at after subtracting the allowable deductions from his income. Currently, the disposable income limit is $7,000 per annum and the allowable deductions are $2,000 for the applicant and $1,000 for each dependant.

MinLaw periodically reviews the means test to make legal aid available to a larger number of low-income applicants. A recent review was done, taking into account higher costs of living and increased litigation costs. I am pleased to inform Members that, with effect from 1st April, the disposable income limit will be increased to $10,000 per annum, not quite the $14,000 the GPC Chairman has asked for, but still a sizeable increase, and the allowance deductions for calculating the disposable income will be increased to $3,000 for the applicant and $2,000 for each dependant.

Sir, let me give the House a simple illustration as to how lower income Singaporeans will benefit from these increased limits. In a family of, say, four, comprising two parents and two dependent children where only the husband works, the family would qualify for legal aid, under the enhanced test, if the father's gross monthly income is about $1,850 (after making deductions for himself, CPF and the dependants), provided the husband's disposable capital limit comes within $7,000. That stays as a limit. Currently, for such a family, the applicant's monthly income must not exceed about $1,200 for the family to qualify for legal aid. I am sure the Members will be happy with this enhanced limit.

As to the other points made by Members, I will assure Prof. Chin and Mr Kenneth Chen that Legal Aid Bureau will have the capacity to handle the increased workload, about 20%. More staff will be engaged and, indeed, work processes will be improved and manpower will be further trained.

Mr Sin asked whether Legal Aid can be more flexible in assessing whether or not aid can be granted, and in particular, he suggests that some form of subsidy be given to those who do not qualify for aid. Sir, Legal Aid Bureau's mission and purpose is to provide quality aid and advice to those of limited means. It does not cover the provision of monetary subsidies. However, that does not mean that everyone who fails the means test will be left high and dry. Most of those who fail the means test, indeed, now receive legal advice on the law and procedure and available courses of action. In any case, now with the high income limits, I think this would be less of a pressing problem. Our approach has worked well. So I would tell Mr Sin, let us keep it like this for the moment, and we can review the means test periodically.

Let me now go on to Mr Shanmugam's point. Mr Shanmugam says that mandatory imprisonment to six months for harbourers found guilty of harbouring immigration offenders is too harsh and indefensible. I strongly disagree. The punishment is strict, but under today's circumstances, entirely justifiable. I urge Mr Shanmugam and people of his like mind to look at the big picture. The nature and magnitude of our illegal offender problem justifies a tough approach. Last year, we arrested 16,500 immigration offenders - a large number by any account. As reported in the media - you read about it often - they are still trying to come in by all means. An unchecked inflow of immigration offenders to a small island will cause grave social harm and pose immense security and safety risks.

Sir, we cannot lift the mandatory imprisonment requirement now. Why? Because it would send the wrong signal and it would put Singapore and Singaporeans at risk. In fact, we should stiffen our resolve to tackle the problem, and that is being done not just by the Government, but I would urge also Singaporean employers and landlords to do likewise. So this is the larger context from which we must view the strict punishment. Larger countries in the region face immense problems caused by a large illegal immigration population. We must not let that happen to Singapore.

Mr Shanmugam says that imposing mandatory imprisonment on harbourers makes a serious inroad into the general principle that the law should provide for mandatory jail sentences only in very exceptional situations. This is just such a situation - the serious problem that we face which is a grave threat. That will be very real if we do not keep up our efforts.

The act of renting out a room to one or even a few immigration offenders in itself may seem innocuous. It is not a violent act. No one is hurt. That is a seductive but flawed argument - because if many people do it, the safety and well-being of Singaporeans, indeed the social stability of Singaporeans, will be threatened.

Let me assure Mr Shanmugam and others like him that the Government invokes mandatory minimum sentences sparingly and only after very careful consideration, taking into account not only the nature of the offence but also the consequences, if the offending acts are left unchecked.

Sir, we should not let our resolve be shaken by misplaced sympathy for the cases of convicted harbourers. As Mr Shanmugam well knows, as a lawyer, hard cases make bad law. Should we change our approach because of these cases? No, we should not. Mandatory imprisonment for harbourers has been in place since 1984. Many harbourers had been jailed before. There was no public outcry. This only started with the case of Mr Seow Boon Wah whose cause was picked up by the media. The media focused on the fact that he was a deacon. By profession, Mr Seow was in fact an insurance agent. Mr Seow's mitigation plea stated that he was an insurance agent, and I quote, "He was an insurance agent until recently.", and "He is currently serving the church ministry full time on an honorary basis." But the press reported him as a deacon and the public was seized with that image. Surely, it cannot be suggested that deacons cannot break the law.

Mr Shanmugam also mentioned an old illiterate and poor lady who did not know any better. Well, Sir, many of these elderly harbourers are not as innocent as they appear. Quite a few have been warned before for letting out their premises to immigration offenders. But they persisted. They could have and ought to have sought help, not least from family members, to conduct the checks. But they did not.

Sir, being lenient towards these elderly landlords will result in them being used as a front, say, by illegal syndicates to beat the law. To bring home the point, let me quote one example. In a widely publicised case last year, a 73-year-old lady was jailed for harbouring five immigration offenders. She did not check the passports or work passes. She was previously warned for harbouring four PRC immigration offenders, just 10 months earlier. The warning was administered in the presence of her two daughters. She obviously did not learn her lesson. Some thought that the law was too harsh on her. But, in reality, she was a smart and scheming lady and knew what she was doing. She was even smart enough to take HDB for a ride. She had been allocated a 1-room rental flat by HDB in 1991. In June 1994, she bought a private property together with her daughter. This was not known to HDB until a year later in 1995, when she was served a notice to quit the HDB flat. She appealed successfully through her MP for her to be allowed to rent the flat on the condition that she would relinquish her share of ownership of the private property. However, investigations revealed that her relinquishment of ownership was only on paper. The transfer document clearly indicated that she was to be given all rights to continue staying in the private property and that her daughter would have no right to dispose of the property without her prior consent. Further, she would bear full responsibility during her occupation of the unit. Is she therefore really an "old, illiterate and poor lady who did not know any better", as Mr Shanmugam puts it?

Sir, I cited these cases at some length to highlight the danger of typecasting harbourers as "the poor deacon" or "the old and illiterate poor lady". These are appealing caricatures which normally do not tell the full story.

Mr Shanmugam is right in that landlords who have been convicted come from diverse backgrounds. Nevertheless, all of them, by their act of renting out the premises to immigration offenders, have contributed to the serious problem today. Their diverse backgrounds notwithstanding, there is a common thread linking them. They have rented out their flat and that have enabled some illegal immigrants to stay. Their liability under the Immigration Act must be seen in this context, which is the requirement set out clearly in the Immigration Act for landlords to make some basic checks when they rent out their premises. These are termed the "due diligence requirements" in the Act. These requirements have been widely publicised. No one should claim he is not aware of them. Indeed, these commonsense checks are not difficult to fulfill. Landlords know that they are dealing with foreign tenants. Yet, many do not bother to check their tenants' passports, despite the widespread and regular publicity over the years about the immigration offenders problem. Some merely look at photocopies of their tenants' work permits; others just leave the checking to the housing agents. That is why offenders mentioned by Mr Shanmugam are convicted and jailed. That is not good enough.

The legislative development of the Immigration Act makes clear that the introduction of due diligence checks in 1993 was to prevent landlords from escaping liability by merely arguing that they had checked some documents proffered by the tenants. In other words, to make clear that careless or negligent checking would not do. In 1991, Justice F A Chua, in relation to a harbouring case, said that the social policy of the Act, and I quote, "would not be achieved if mere negligence and recklessness on the part of the accused to enquire about the status of the illegal immigrant or overstayer, if he knows or has reasons to believe that the person is a foreigner, would be sufficient to rebut the presumption of knowledge."

The Chief Justice in a later case on appeal (1993) said that, and I quote, "to allow an employer to evade the section by shutting his eyes to the immigration or employment status of his foreign employee will make proper control and enforcement impossible. It cannot be placing too onerous a duty upon employers in Singapore to require them to screen their foreign workers before employing them to ensure compliance with immigration policy and law."

Hence, from the outset, both the courts and Government were in agreement that our immigration laws must not be defeated by a harbourer or employer simply making a claim that he did not know that the tenant, the worker, was an immigration offender. The judges agreed that our immigration laws should be interpreted strictly; in other words, it is reasonable to impose some form of screening or checks by landlords and employers. Being careless and negligent in conducting the checks was just not good enough. Indeed, the Chief Justice, in another case said, "Social and public policy dictates that the law relating to immigration offences is deliberately strict. Those who come into contact with foreign workers are required to learn one way or another what they must do and what they need not do in their dealings with foreign workers." The same can be said of landlords who deal with tenants who are immigration offenders. Hence, being careless or negligent is not good enough. 4.45 pm

The Chairman: Order. It is "guillotine" time.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, I thank the Minister and Minister of State for their comprehensive and positive answers, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $185,534,320 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $217,940,700 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head R -

The Chairman: Head R - Ministry of Information and the Arts. Amendment No. (1), Mr Chew.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (East Coast): Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, we have come a long way in the promotion and development of the arts in Singapore. We are no longer the cultural desert that we were in the 70s and 80s. The Government has done much to facilitate and assist in the development of the arts. Funding for the arts has increased manifold in the last ten years. Busking is now legal. There is also an increased outreach programme in schools, parks and communities. Funding for the arts education has also increased in recent years. Some arts groups are now housed in permanent locations and are partially funded by the Government. Then there is also the Annual Arts Festival and Singaporeans today are able to enjoy the benefits of numerous international shows in a year.

The Government is also building the $600 million arts centre called The Esplanade - Theatre at the Bay which will be ready in the second half of next year. Sir, credit must go to the National Arts Council and the various agencies under MITA for promoting and developing the arts successfully. Perhaps, it is time to take stock of what had been achieved in the past decade of the development of the arts. I would therefore like to ask the Minister if he would update the House on his Ministry's mission to develop Singapore as a Renaissance City and where do we proceed from here.

Sir, on the same cut, I have a specific question to ask and that pertains to the criteria for state fundings of the arts. I am concerned that, in our haste to promote the arts in Singapore, we may have inadvertently forgotten the fact that we live in a multi-racial, multi-religious society with strong moral and ethical standards. Of late, a number of productions by artistes, both local and foreign, have been staged in Singapore to public audience which have included rather controversial and sensitive topics. Take the case of Talaq which covers one Indian-Muslim story of marital violence and rape. Then there is Rent, a rock 'n' roll musical that included positive treatments of homosexuality and drug abuse. And there are others like Asian Boys Vol. 1, the S and M Musical "Chameleon", and so on.

Sir, I am not averse to letting artistes expressing themselves. However, left to their own decisions, I am concerned that art for arts' sake can include just about anything that may not be in the interest of our community. It is therefore necessary to ensure that state funding for the arts, whether through the NAC or other agencies, should be a lot more selective with some definable criteria. Whilst we would like to support creativity and develop our own critical mass of local artistes, we may have to be careful when public funds are poured into productions that have themes that are anathema to the wider interest of our society. Lines have to be drawn to maintain certain standards.

Sir, I would like to propose that MITA has clearly defined rules setting out criteria in granting funding or sponsorship of the arts so that the artistes are more aware of what the playing field is. In addition, perhaps, MITA could come out with a code of practice binding corporate sponsors for the arts as well.

The Chairman: I would like to inform hon. Members that discussions on Mr Chew's amendment should end by 6.25 pm. Dr Jennifer Lee.

Dr Jennifer Lee: Sir, the National Arts Council's mission statement speaks of developing Singapore into a vibrant global city of the arts. This is not just a luxury that we can now afford to allow ourselves but, in fact, an integral part of what needs to happen to make this a satisfying and indeed an exciting place to live in both to engage our own young talented people and keep them here as well as to attract the additional foreign talents that we need to our shores.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.51 pm

Dr Jennifer Lee: That Government is supportive is clear from its acceptance last year of the Renaissance City Report and the commitment of $50 million in funding over the next five years towards this initiative. Sir, the NAC has a great challenge ahead of it. Let me start by saying that from my conversations with various arts groups and practitioners, I have heard much positive comments about the NAC's accessibility, about its efforts to establish and maintain a good dialogue with the arts community and its responsiveness to suggestions and recommendations made about assistance schemes and training grants that would be most helpful and supportive. Building depth in industry is not something that can be achieved overnight. And currently, it is difficult to find enough good and experienced people from players to technicians, production managers, all categories of people, for all the events and activities that are now being organised.

The underlying problem is the inability to pay enough to build a good solid core of full-time professionals in the arts industry. It seems that, apart from a few in senior positions in the big very well established groups, either you need to have very supportive and understanding parents who will allow you to live with them, probably well into your geriatric years, or you have still to be working part time in the arts and sustain yourself in another day time job. Because, historically, the arts group has been functioning in this manner. From our days of a completely amateur community in the arts, the operating budget all this time has been built on a base of token salaries and allowances. They are caught now in a bind. How can you justify quantum leaps percentage-wise in your manpower costs in putting up programmes? The groups are very appreciative of the additional funding they have been getting lately. But much of it is going to more programmes and activities and very little to adjusting salaries and allowances to anything even close to what would be needed in the longer term to make any difference in growing a core of full-time professionals in the arts, which is what you are going to need if you want to build that group in the industry.

In this context, and from the perspective of supporting most wholeheartedly what NAC is seeking to achieve, I must say that it must be a very tough task to develop a global city in the arts with an annual budget of $32 million which is what the NAC has for FY 2001.

I also notice that the projected increase in next year's budget is only about $3 million in operating budget. When you look at the $50 million over five years that has been set aside for the Renaissance City initiatives, this seems rather less than what one would expect. Possibly, the NAC is being prudent and saving more to be spent in the later part of the five years. But I would encourage it to be more aggressive and pump in the resources early, to jump-start the effort so that we can get to the critical mass of industry players and participants to really make the difference. And to support and, in fact, encourage arts groups in its review and approval of grants, that they should factor in in increasing the amounts needed to start moving artistes and arts professionals' remuneration towards levels that are necessary to make careers in the arts more viable.

Could I also pick up on Mr Chew's point on concern about regulation in the view of the more liberal and some controversial and possibly provocative programmes that we have been seeing lately? I do understand that, given our very varied and diverse community, this would be a concern. I know that currently, there is a review going on as to how the arts should be licensed and regulated. I would argue very strongly to keep in fact the regulating body and the funding body separate because, otherwise, it is going to be extremely difficult. You are going to get tied up in knots as to what you should be funding, as an agency promoting the arts, and what you need to be taking care of, in terms of sensitivity to our communities.

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, the Government has increased funding for the arts. This is a very positive step forward for the arts scene in Singapore. At present, four established groups receive $2 million each, 17 smaller groups share another $2 million, with the remaining $2 million shared by another 60-odd groups. However, community-based and clan association-based groups are not eligible for funds from this scheme.

This situation in funding does not acknowledge the important role the small groups play in forging cohesiveness as well as in promoting understanding among groups of different cultural backgrounds. With a very small population in Singapore, it is very difficult for performing groups to solely rely on its own community to survive, not to say flourish. Without a vibrant arts scene at the grassroots level, it would be difficult for Singapore to cultivate arts as an integral part of every Singaporean's life, the foundation for a Renaissance City. However, we have been very fortunate to have a group of successful Singaporeans who are also strong arts supporters. It is this group of arts supporters who have been contributing to the small groups. And each year, the National Arts Council confers its prestigious Patron of the Arts Awards, Friends of the Arts Awards and Associate of the Arts Awards to those who contribute $50,000 and more. The supporters of the small groups have been neglected.

Sir, I am glad that the NAC launched the New Arts Supporters Award this year to recognise this group of sponsors who have contributed less than $50,000 towards the promotion and organisation of the artistic activities. The contribution of this group of small time supporters has not been recognised for a long, long time. However, it is better late than never. I would like to urge MITA to also award the Outstanding Small Performing Arts Group, based on their performance and potential. The award can be in the form of cash grant, plus training opportunity. At present, most of the arts groups survive on a very lean budget. Funds and opportunities for training should be extended to the small arts groups, especially in the area of arts management.

Mr R. Ravindran (Bukit Timah): Sir, I am delighted with the multitude of art events that are taking place in Singapore daily. In fact, on some days, Singaporeans have a difficult time choosing what art events to attend. I must congratulate MITA, in particular, the National Arts Council, for implementing many of the public suggestions and recommendations contained in the Renaissance City plan. I am particularly glad that NAC has started using the $50 million Government fund to fund various performing arts groups in Singapore. With all these efforts and the completion of The Esplanade - Theatre at the Bay in 2002, we can certainly proclaim ourselves as a global city for the arts.

I would like to ask the Minister to give us an update on the progress made on the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Renaissance City plan and the future plans of the Ministry to bring arts to the people, particularly to those in the HDB heartland. 5.00 pm

Sir, one of the concerns that has been raised by those in the arts arena is to have greater transparency in the grant of funds by the NAC, for arts groups. I have often heard complaints of certain arts groups being favoured over others. I would like to ask the Minister to explain the process of how NAC considers grants, and how far the NAC can go, to make the process a transparent one so that the public can see for themselves how the funds are disbursed.

Sir, the other point that I would like to raise is that one of the yardsticks for success as an artiste is to gain international recognition. I am sure that we have many local artistes who are well known internationally. There are many more local artistes who will need international exposure to continue their learning through exchange programmes and overseas performances. I would like to ask the Minister as to the measures that have been taken by MITA to provide the necessary international exposure to these young budding local artistes.

Mr Chew Heng Ching: Sir, there has already been some debate on this subject of media liberalisation recently. However, I would like to reinforce the concern that media liberalisation, which has thus far involved the proliferation of a great number of newspapers generally reporting the same news, may lead, if we are not careful, to a deterioration in quality standards of newspapers, in order to attract attention and ensure circulation volume.

The public now has a wide variety of newspapers to choose from. These include our traditional Straits Times and the mass circulation New Paper, Streats, Today, Project Eyeball. In order to compete for readership and, hence, advertising revenue, our press has occasionally resorted to sensationalisation at the expense of providing pertinent and reliable information. Sir, it is not just Project Eyeball or Streats which displays centrespreads of a scantily-clad Jennifer Lopez, for example. Even the venerable Straits Times has not been spared the need to highlight sex and violence occasionally. Take the Sunday Times of 25th February 2001, for example, where the story about a couple making love on board a British Airways flight, covered a significant part of the front page of that paper. News on ministerial walkabouts or national policy news - which certainly cannot compete as juicy news - do not always steal a front page story.

Sir, the local print media is still protected by legislation from foreign competition. It has therefore an obligation to continue to support the national interest, which is to raise the awareness of domestic and other issues which are critical to nation-building. We cannot afford to have this role negated completely for commercial interest as, once we start on that slippery slope downhill, it will be difficult to crawl back to higher standards of journalistic integrity, which our media should aspire to.

I would, therefore, like to propose to the Minister that the Publication Advisory Committee (PAC) of MITA step up efforts and take on a more pro-active role in reviewing journalism and editorial standards of our newspapers. Like the other two more active programme advisory committees overseeing programming and development in the other two media - the broadcast and Internet - I propose that the PAC should report to the Minister regularly as a check against any drop in standards of reporting by our local newspapers.

Mr Seng Han Thong: (In Mandarin): Sir, last year, the Government liberalised the media. There are three more newspapers now. Singaporeans are aware of the keen competition in print media and they know that it is better to have competition because they can get free newspapers. On the other hand, in order to stimulate their sales volume, the newspapers have resorted to feature all kinds of sensational news. But it is too early to conclude whether the additional newspapers are good or bad.

The broadcasting and TV stations will also be plunged into competition. We have to make use of SCV to serve every home in Singapore as well as homes outside Singapore. The Minister, in answer to questions about the media, has said that the opening up of the newspapers and the press is good, although there are some newspapers which feature some scantily-dressed ladies on their front-page to attract the readers. Will MITA review the guidelines on the media? Whether they are in English, Chinese, Malay or Tamil, there should be some fair guiding principles so that our TV stations will not lower their standards and resort to sex and violence in order to get more viewers. What kind of assistance will be given to our local stations to cope with the competition by the foreign stations? We cannot deny the fact that many Singaporeans have started to switch over to foreign stations as they find foreign TV programmes of a very high standard, in terms of programming, content and packaging, etc. Therefore, we have to catch up with foreign-made programmes. It is possible that after watching foreign programmes for some time they may not switch back to our local stations and be oblivious of what has been happening in Singapore.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin (Nominated Member): Sir, I am a bit more optimistic about the experiment on media liberalisation so far, compared to the previous speakers, and rise to urge the Minister to allow and consider some regulation of the media to keep pace with the expected further liberalisation down the road.

Sir, at a recent meeting of the feedback group on mass media, participants expressed the view that media liberalisation has brought about greater choices and variety of news reporting, with newspapers and broadcasting stations targeting on specific niche markets. This is very good because readers can now choose the papers and TV channels that would best cater to their own needs. And, fortunately, despite the competition and availability of free newspapers, we have so far escaped the much-feared negative impact that media liberalisation could bring, as experienced in some countries.

Newspapers, in general, have not been tempted or distracted to sell sex, sleaze and crime as a means to boost circulation, but there is one qualifier. This afternoon, I am tempted to change my mind after Prof. Toh See Kiat distracted my attention and showed me the centrefold of today's Today newspaper. A large part of the success, except for this exception, is primarily due to the restriction on ownership of the media that still remains in the hands of trusted Singapore Government-owned companies, which carries with it special voting rights. Generally the press has been responsible in balancing its rights and responsibilities, trusted for its role in public service, and impartial in balancing reports and views - sometimes, I notice, taking pains to separate information from opinion.

However, I find it very ironic that while the local media is trusted to serve the general good of Singapore, protecting our culture and religious values, and recognised as important partners in nation building, yet it is not good enough to regulate or self-regulate or look after some of its internal interests. My own view is that the press has earned the public trust to be self-regulated, and we should encourage this, at least for two very important reasons.

1. Further liberalisation can be expected. New technologies will mean greater availability and accessibility of all kinds of news media being delivered right into our homes. We must, therefore, start paving the way for the media themselves to establish some of the rules and regulations in which they operate. It would be increasingly difficult for the Government to continue to regulate the media in its existing form in the face of new and ever-increasing information channels brought about by new technologies. A responsible media is ultimately better placed to decide what is desirable and what is not. If we can achieve this, just like some of the regulations on Internet, then regulations on our media can be administered with a lighter touch.

2. We still need to do a lot more to overcome the unfortunate negative perceptions associated with the local media implied by the statutory regulations - that of heavy-handed control of censorship, or the encouragement of censorship, and the fear that the very organisations which are more often the subject of hard news, ie, Government and institutions, are judging the rules on how they should be covered.

I suggest that a Press Commission be set up with members from the media representatives and lay persons, and given powers to take complaints from the public and to judge the behaviour of its members according to an agreed code of practice. If need be, this autonomous body can still report to the Minister. The Commission can, for example, settle disputes on unethical practices and unfair behaviour by the media. For example, the recent revelation of the financial circumstance of a TCS actress raised in some people the legitimate fears of media intrusion into what should be the private lives of individuals, especially of persons who are neither officials nor public figures.

Secondly, it could pave the way for further liberalisation, if the system proves media capability to sustain responsible and ethical behaviour.

Sir, I think there are adequate laws and provisions that currently exist to ensure that self-regulation will not lead to a free-for-all situation or an adversarial or ideological partisan media environment. I, for one, would agree that the existing defamation laws, for example, must remain in force to ensure that the media continue to strike the appropriate balance between the protection of regulation and freedom of expression. But I am hoping that the Minister acknowledges that in the long-run, self-regulation is a necessary step in the on-going process of media liberalisation.

Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Thank you, Sir, for letting me join in the debate, and thank you, Encik Zulkifli, for the teaser.

We live in a liberal age and our various monopolistic and cartelistic businesses are being introduced to competition. Telecommunications, power generation, you have it. and, now, television and newspapers. We are also becoming very liberal in our values. But I jump ahead of my story.

Some years ago, I sat down to watch a television programme which my newspaper TV schedule proclaimed to be a documentary. It was called "The Making of Perfection". I should have known better, as that title was the advertising slogan of a luxury brand of cars. It was 15 minutes of shameless self-praise. For such a programme in America, there are laws requiring the insertion of a footer on the screen stating that it is a paid commercial.

Well, sometimes we make mistakes, errors of judgement and, in that case, the TV station admitted it was their fault, and apologised for the wrong labelling of the programme. Still, a legally-mandated footer on screen for such programmes, as also for TV shopping programmes, would have been proper.

Some days ago, I saw the gory picture of a girl with 70% burns, in full colour, on the front of two evening newspapers. No surprise to many of us, I suppose. But that picture appeared too in the English tabloids and - take a deep breath - in full colour, on the front page, of a so-called "quality, family newspaper" (but greatly reduced in size, as if that reduces the offence).

Newspapers, magazines, television programmes, radio programmes - no one is apologetic these days that there is an increasing supply of sex, blood, scanty clothes and prurient "news stories" - the kind where sexual organs are cut by furious wives, sexual offenders whose offences are described in graphic detail, transsexuals who play volleyball - you name it, they have it. And, in case you want me to give you an example, this is what Mr Zulkifli mentioned [indicating] - on the pretext of reporting the decline in the morals of fashion shows - full colour, scantily-clothed ladies. Sir, would you like a closer look?

Unrepentant radio programmers even urge critics to switch off the radio if they do not like the programmes. That, to me, Sir, is akin to saying, "Let us allow Playboy magazine to come in and, if any one objects to it, don't buy it."

The Straits Times, Today, Streats, Wanbao - what have you - they have all cut close to the fringes of bad taste, murky morals and dodgy ethics. Advertisements masquerading as staff-written feature articles. Here is another example. Today's Today, page 34, a full-page feature on the glories of Dubai and a full page advertisement, next page, on Dubai itself. Coincidental? Not related at all? Tell me another one. Sir, what is wrong with journalists praising their advertisers? Well, for one, deception, or, at the very least, breach of trust. Journalists are supposed to write investigative pieces from an unbiased angle, uninfluenced by monetary inducements. Their views are trusted. Another problem, and I think opposition politicians think they face this alone, is refusal to print corrections to errors in news stories, or printing corrections in obscure inside pages when the erroneous news story appears in banner headlines on the front page. 5.15 pm

I remember once when I was CASE President, a certain newspaper published a series of articles laden with errors. Another time, they had a sensational front page story that was based on misinterpretation of what I said, and this is before liberalisation. Both times, I asked for the right to reply. Instead, the Editor negotiated with me for an apology. I had to give in. Why? Well, as CASE President, I needed to be in their good books. They can lionise you, even give you credit for things you did not do, or they can shut you out. As CASE President, I really needed their support for my cause.

And then there is the question of deception and misrepresentation to obtain news stories. Recently, the Straits Times ran stories on the MPs of 1997 who are rising, or who are grassroots MPs. I thank them for listing me as one of the five grassroots MPs. But I agree with my colleague, Mr Leong Horn Kee, that public speeches are no way to measure our work as MPs. What I am more concerned about today, however, is that they got me to send them my curriculum vitae with this letter: "Dear Sir, we need to update our database to ensure it is accurate" and not "Dear Sir, we want your updated CV because we want to write a story about you after comparing your CV with other MPs' CVs." If they did that, they would not have got their story. Who can I complain to to stop what I see as the first step down the slippery slope to yellow journalism? There should be a neutral, independent watchdog body for this.

As for advertising ethics, that is supposedly covered by a self-regulatory scheme called the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice (SCAP). That document was last drafted in 1976 and hopelessly out of tune with the times. It is also a code imposed only on members. The new media owners, the electronic publishers, the print publications and the broadcasters - they are all out of reach because they have not joined as members. Besides, the code has no teeth and works as long as the media owners cooperate. In 1997, as CASE President, I presented a proposed new SCAP for the industry body, the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore, to consider. They are reportedly still considering. There is no will to change and unlike Mr Zulkilfi, I have a dimmer view of media self-regulation. I think there should be, at the very least, co-regulation with the Government.

As moral standards slide, the regulators are standing by inert. The sins are not serious enough yet. And that convenient cop-out: we already have this and that and other committee. In any case, in the age of converging media, we can no longer have different agencies governing different categories of media. This agency for print, that authority for broadcasting, that board for films, etc, etc.

It is indeed time for a Media Watch Council (MWC) with powers to impose penalties on infringements of morals, ethics or bad taste, regardless of the medium. Merely making recommendations for future change, such as what the Publications Advisory Committee and other advisory councils currently do, is a mockery. No one takes note. The penalties imposed by the MWC can range from censure to withdrawal of the programme or, perhaps funding where relevant, or cancellation of the advertisement or modification and amendment. The MWC should also have power to order corrections to be made with the same prominence and in the same space as the original error-ridden publication, and the power to fine those whose infractions are already too late to remedy or too serious to ignore. The MWC can be composed of a mix of lay persons and the pillars of society, as is presently the case in the various advisory committees of MITA. In this way, we can allow for some room for changing value systems in the society at large. I am mindful of the fact that some people say we used not to be able to look at ankles of ladies, now we can.

Sir, without such a Council, it is every man and media owner for himself/itself. It is not a pretty situation. If we do not act now, we will slowly but surely acclimatise to the lower standards. Like the frog in the slowly boiling water, we would be dead before we even realise we are in danger. That cannot be what the silent majority wants. That cannot be what the Government wants.

I urge the Government to act now, as preventive medication is always better and cheaper than curative medication and treatments.

Mr Chew Heng Ching: Sir, I will be less emotional. I make this cut to express my concern over the increasing proliferation of violence in our various mass media. For example, in a widely accessible TV programming, Sportscity shows the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) at 10.30 pm on Fridays, 6.00 pm on Saturdays and 5.00 pm on Sundays, and these are all prime hours. The recent WWF programme shows that wrestling can also be a bloody experience. A programme that glorifies violence has now been telecast as wholesome family entertainment. It has been reported that children in schools, who are not properly supervised, try to mimic the acts of these wrestlers. I am not alone here. In recent times, letters that appear in the Forum Page of the Straits Times have also expressed the same concern.

Even the SCV cartoon channel has deteriorated to include scenes of gratuitous violence. One particular culprit is the "cow and the chicken" cartoon series which is screened almost at all times of the day. I am concerned that it does not just stop there. This is but a couple of examples on society that is now flushed with violent images and programmes. Whilst we have been focusing on sex on the big screen, and R(A) ratings are routinely given for films and productions which have a sexual content that is beyond a certain level, the level of general violence in non R(A)-rated films may have gone unnoticed. Glorification in the press for movies like Hannibal, for example, and the print media focus on photographs, like what the earlier speakers have said, depicting violence on the front pages to catch attentions of readers, is also disturbing.

Whilst the studies on the influence of TV and film and cartoon violence in US and Japan have not been conclusive, there are parallels that can be drawn between the horrific violent crimes in Japan and the United States and the ambivalence of its youth to it. Even the subject of violence did not escape the eyes of the MITA Programme Advisory Committee on TV and radio programmes. In its recent report, it has highlighted that programmes with strong violent themes, like WWF, should be avoided during family viewing time.

Sir, I think it is timely to review our censorship policy on violence in general in our various media. May I therefore propose that MITA initiate a review of our censorship policy on violence with a view to minimise its bad influence on our young.

Mr Zulkfili Bin Baharudin: Sir, even after listening to Prof. Toh, I am still of the view that a self-regulated press commission would have achieved the desired objective and probably would have censored the centrefold that he mentioned.

Coming back to my cut on censorship, the last Review Committee on censorship was done in 1992. I must say that they must be credited for recommending major changes in censorship, especially for its role in stimulating the mindset changes needed to balance the growing demand for creative space and maintaining a morally wholesome society. Since then, much has changed, especially in terms of technology which makes it necessary and urgent for another review to be done to address some of these dilemmas facing the censors.

Let me just explain a few examples. One, currently R(A) movies are allowed to be screened in specially licensed theatres outside public housing estates. I really doubt, in a small country like ours, whether allowing such movies to be screened in Orchard Road and not in Ang Mo Kio, is still relevant today. Two, there seems to be an anomaly between what is considered private and public consumption. You can see R(A) movies in cinemas because it is considered private. But you cannot possess the same CDs, even for your own personal pleasure, as it is considered public simply because of the ease of distribution. Perhaps, we need to re-define some of these terms and differentiate the rules regarding accessibility, possession and distribution. The present tools appear too blunt for what is now a more complex and dynamic phenomenon. For example, you can view pornographic materials. The policeman may be standing next to you and you still do not break the law. But you cannot download such materials as it may be tantamount to distribution of obscene or objectionable materials.

The ban on Cosmopolitan is still in force but many more such sites are available on the Internet. Therefore, for the new review, we need to come out with a different approach about regulating the media. The review is also urgent to deal with a growing problem of pornographic Internet sites. For example, in a survey conducted by the School of Communication Studies in NTU and again discussed at the Feedback Group Meeting, a large number of students were found to have regular access to pornographic Internet sites. Many Singaporeans, both young and adults, are, in fact, by-passing regulatory framework to access pornography on-line. A higher proportion, some estimated to be as close as 90%, have access to pornography through Internet sites rather than traditional formats like magazines and video.

Sir, we need to find new and innovative ways to counter an equally innovative content provider. There is now strong support on the need for a rating system to allow Internet users to make their own choices, like having content providers to advise the public so that the appropriate choices can be made. We need to balance content classification about outright censorship and review how family access network and a filtering software can be further developed due to its less than encouraging popularity amongst families.

Sir, we need to find better answers to balance the dilemma between giving adults greater freedom of choice on the one hand, and restricting access of undesirable materials to young and children on the other. We also need to have more citizen participation and consider the role, for example, of the Parents Advisory Group for Internet (PAGI) which can be expected to take on a bigger role in the face of more complex changes. This is especially so when the survey shows that most parents really do not know how to supervise their children. Citizen groups and civil societies should also be encouraged to form censorship watch groups to develop, what Minister George Yeo calls, a civic immune system. Private sector players and service providers should also be made to play an active role to provide cleaner or family-friendly alternatives. Censorship will be an issue that we need to deal with constantly and ad-hoc or periodic reviews may not be sufficient. Therefore, we need to find and put in place a system to ensure that censorship laws do not end up playing catch-up.

Mr Seng Han Thong: (In Mandarin): Sir, during the past few years, there have been quite a number of charity shows over TV to raise funds for the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and the National Heart Association (NHA). When the audiences see their TV artistes performing the stunts, they would call in and pay $5 per call to contribute their donation. For NKF and NHA charity shows, the targets for the amounts to be raised have become higher and higher, from $1 million to $2 million. Accordingly, the stunts to be performed by the TV artistes on these charity shows are becoming more and more dangerous. Many people think that the artistes were risking their lives with the performance of these stunts.

Doing charity is good but to ask artistes to risk their lives for higher fund-raising targets is against the spirit of charity and good deeds. Artistes are not trained acrobats from the circus and the spectators are not watching a circus performance. So why are they made to watch their favourite TV artistes pressing their bodies on the spears and hanging upside down with a heavy chain tied to their necks until they almost suffocate. What happens if something were to go wrong? The organisers stated that they had taken insurance coverage for these artistes. This is not a question of having insurance coverage or not. It is a question of conscience. If you hang a dog upside down, the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) will certainly lodge a protest and complain. Do you want your children and family members to watch all these tortures to their favourite TV artistes before they are willing to call in and donate to charity?

Recently, our TV stations screened the programme called "Super Change" from Japan. In the programme, colleagues from the same company or members of the same family would team up to create some very creative scenes. It is a very novel way to promote creativity and at the same time encourage family members or colleagues from a company to work and play together as a team, thereby fostering better relationship among them. Why do we not learn from them? Instead, we are going for violence and sadism. With the further opening up of the media and competition by a new TV station, I hope that this kind of unhealthy programme will not appear again. I hope that the media can exercise some restraint and that the SBA will provide some kind of guidance. If the TV station persists in torturing the artistes, we should boycott them by not calling in because it is no longer a charitable performance, but an act of violence and sadism. 5.30 pm

Dr Ho Tat Kin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Sir, MITA granted TV Mobile licence for buses. Ever since the launch, there were many complaints from the public. The Straits Times Forum page received 62 letters on TV Mobile. Of these, only five or 8% were in favour of this so-called innovation. The Straits Times interactive survey showed that 1,450 respondents or 62% gave the thumbs down, while 479 or 29% were indifferent. Another street poll done by Straits Times from Bishan to Orchard Road also showed close results. In view of the animosity towards TV Mobile, will MITA re-examine the current licensing policies? Sir, my second question: are there any plans to allow TV Mobile to be installed in other forms of public transport?

Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Sir, Mr Seng Han Thong said that television programmes are to be watched. By Mr Chew Heng Ching's example of WWF, Mr Seng's example of charity shows and if you want another example, the example of "Survivor", I think we really need to look at the kind of TV programmes we are paying for with our licence fees, because "Survivor" does not teach us anything good at all.

We inherited from our former British rulers the idea of a State-run radio and TV station funded by licence fees. In those days, it made sense. Radio and TV were powerful channels of communication to the masses and had to be closely regulated and licensed to prevent chaos and disorder. And I wonder perhaps maybe a bit of Second World War attitude where radios could be used to communicate with the enemy. Those days are gone.

Radio and TV stations are private businesses now. Licences are anachronistic in the age of the Internet. We do not even need radios or TVs now to listen to radio programmes or to watch television narrowcasts. The need still remains for us to fund public service programmes and to encourage the production of programmes with local values and content - good values and content also, I must add. Because of our small market, such programmes are expensive and cannot solely be funded by advertising. On the other hand, if they are so important to the national good, should they not be funded entirely from the Government budget, just as education or health care is? I do admit that perhaps there could be some form of co-payment from users according to use, if that is possible.

Sir, let us call a spade a spade. We are not paying for licences to own our radios or TVs. We are paying a broadcasting tax, or perhaps a fee for use, in which case we should have a mechanism to ensure that bigger use means bigger fees. And lousy programmes do not get my fees! Perhaps then the SBA would not need to explain ad nauseam why we still collect licence fees in this day and age.

The Minister for Information and the Arts (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Sir, I wish to thank Members for their comments and suggestions. With their support and critical feedback, MITA aims to do more and hopefully better each year, to realize our goal of turning Singapore into a vibrant, global city of the arts and media hub.

Let me first touch on broadcasting and media issues raised by Mr Chew Heng Ching, Mr Seng Han Thong, Prof. Toh See Kiat and Mr Zulkifli. They have asked about the impact of competition on the media and how we should regulate the media in this Internet age. Last June, I announced that we will issue an additional broadcasting licence to SPH and a newspaper licence to MediaCorp. The liberalisation is to meet public desire for a greater variety of views and programmes as well as to inject some competition into our local media industry. The aim is to strengthen the local media so that they are better able to hold the attention of our local audience to share Singaporean viewpoints and experiences in the face of increasing competition from foreign media across all media platforms.

Constructive competition for the local media will attract much needed talent, augment consumer choice, and improve the quality of local content in the long term. Our media companies will have to be vigilant, innovative and adaptable to stay ahead of the competition. It is already evident that competition has injected new vigour to the local newspapers. Feedback has shown that Singaporeans welcome the expanded choice of newspapers and I am confident that each newspaper will find its place, with offerings from serious news to entertainment.

Nonetheless, there have been some concerns raised by Members and others on the need for standards to be maintained, given the proliferation of English newspapers and additional TV channels following the liberalisation. I can assure Members that MITA shares this concern and is closely monitoring the situation. We would like the local media to maintain high journalistic standards and make sound editorial judgements of what constitutes good taste and decency. Like Prof. Toh See Kiat and Mr Chew Heng Ching, I have also observed that there is an occasional tendency for some newspapers to publish pictures which cross the line for good taste and intrude into the privacy of some members of the public.

The two local media companies, in their drive to outdo each other, should also be mindful that biased, one-sided reporting is not in keeping with the spirit of fair competition and professional conduct, especially if third parties are hurt in the process. This is illustrated by the negative coverage of the recent Miss Singapore-Universe beauty pageant. I thought the contestants did reasonably well considering the pressure that they were under with the live telecast to many Singaporean viewers. However, the reports that came out blasted them for being "beauties without brains." This was unfounded, ungracious and unfair to the contestants. The organisers did make some slips in their first attempt at live broadcast of a beauty pageant. However, someone told me that the extremely negative reports in several newspapers could be partly because of the media competition. I am not sure if there is any truth in that. In any case, I would expect our media companies to compete fairly and professionally, even if the report is about an event concerning their competitor. Our media should compete on the basis of better quality and not negative reporting.

With the proliferation of alternative viewpoints in the media, the public has to adopt a more discerning and critical attitude towards the information they receive. Any attempt by the local media players to dumb-down, sensationalise or stir up controversial issues may appeal to some readers or audience. However, it could also damage the media's credibility and risk consumer backlash. On our part, MITA will encourage our media to set high standards of professionalism, accuracy and objectivity. We are assisted in our efforts by several advisory bodies, such as the Publications Advisory Committee and the Programmes Advisory Committee, which include members from a wide cross section of society to reflect public opinion.

Mr Chew Heng Ching asked if the role of the Publications Advisory Committee (PAC) will be stepped up. The PAC will continue to advise MITA on the content and trends of newspapers and publications, consider complaints by members of the public, and review newspaper and publishing guidelines. MITA intends to tap on the PAC on a more regular basis. The PAC will also submit an annual report of its findings to MITA, similar to the practice of the Programmes Advisory Committee for the broadcasting industry.

Prof. Toh See Kiat and Mr Zulkifli have also proposed the setting up of media self-regulating bodies, such as a Media Watch Council, to set media ethics and standards. This is something which the industry may wish to consider if, despite the intense competition, it is able to reach a gentleman's understanding to subject itself to public and competitor scrutiny. It may not be practical yet to have an umbrella body for the entire media industry as the different components of press, broadcasting and Internet have different characteristics and functions. MITA, on our part, will continue to exercise overall responsibility, through the Films and Publications Department and the Singapore Broadcasting Authority, to uphold high standards of print and broadcast content.

Mr Seng Han Thong has also asked if MITA has any guidelines to protect Singaporeans from the undesirable outcomes of foreign media competition. Where the foreign media are concerned, the rules are simple. They operate here as a matter of privilege and not of right. We welcome them to come to Singapore and report on local developments, based on the principle of accuracy, fairness and balance. However, they must not engage in our domestic politics, as this is the preserve of Singaporeans.

The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act already establishes this policy in relation to foreign newspapers and magazines. Foreign publications deemed to be engaging in domestic politics would have their circulation restricted. Over the years, the foreign media have come around to accept this policy and our right of reply.

MITA intends to extend this policy to include foreign broadcasts in Singapore. I will soon be introducing a Bill to amend the Singapore Broadcasting Authority Act to provide the Minister with the power to declare any foreign broadcasting service to be engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore, and to limit its distribution. The Minister can then impose conditions on errant foreign broadcasting services. The system of regulations on foreign broadcasts will be similar to that on foreign newspapers. Our aim is not to ban information but to restrict subscriber and advertising revenue to an errant channel.

Mr Chew Heng Ching has suggested that we review our censorship policy with regard to violence as portrayed in our mass media. The next review of censorship policy will certainly focus on this important issue, amongst others. Concerning violence in TV programmes, MITA and SBA have received very few public complaints, as broadcasters have generally conformed with the guidelines on TV violence stipulated by SBA's TV Programming Code. The Code is constantly updated, incorporating feedback from SBA's Programme Advisory Committee (PAC) and the public, to ensure that it meets current requirements and expectations. The PAC is mindful that action movies with violent themes or scenes are not appropriate for prime-time family viewing, and SBA has advised broadcasters to exercise greater care and sensitivity when scheduling programmes. As for cartoon violence, no major areas of concern have been expressed by the public or SBA's Children's Programme Advisory Committee. Nevertheless, MITA will look into the cartoon called `Cow and Chicken' that Mr Chew has raised. SBA currently funds some 1,500 hours of local children's programmes annually. This should hopefully provide some balance. Concerning wrestling programmes on Sportscity, I am aware of the different opinions expressed in the Forum pages on this issue. SBA will continue to monitor this area to assess if further guidelines and actions are necessary.

Mr Zulkifli has spoken eloquently on the need to review the censorship policies. And as he has rightly pointed out, we have taken a light-touch approach with regard to Internet regulation that emphasises industry's self-regulation and public education. 5.45 pm

I would like to assure the Member that the situation is not static. Although the last review was done in 1992, over the years, as technology changes and with the advent of the Internet, the Ministry has in fact moved and taken a pragmatic approach. For example, we have only blacked out 100 sites, mostly pornography sites, as a statement of our values. We have also provided parents with alternative access to what is known as the Family Access Network. The question is how to make this network more effective and how to introduce this network to more parents, some of whom are not computer literate or who may not be aware of what is available in the market.

He pointed out what he called certain inconsistency in our guidelines. This could be partly because of the different media. It is obviously not possible for us to apply the rules of the Internet to the wider world. Because, with the Internet, it is almost impossible to control. But out there in the cinema, on our TV especially, we are especially careful because these are open to all and sundry, including young children. That is why we have a graduated approach for different categories of media, with the most severe being for TV shows. That is why although we allow R(A) films to be shown in the cinemas, we do not allow R(A) VCDs in the homes. The thinking is that the VCDs could be viewed by children. So that points out really to the need for self-regulation, for parents to have a greater say in what their children do and to decide for themselves what is appropriate for themselves. But anyway this is something that will have to be all looked into in the context of a future review of the censorship policy.

Mr Seng Han Thong raised a query with regard to the safety of MediaCorp artistes performing in charity shows, that efforts to attract audiences are not made at the expense of safety. I share the Member's apprehension. I was quite concerned last year when I saw a cyclist perform an aerial jump over some local artistes lying on the stage. If any unforeseen accident had happened then, we would not be able to see some of our brightest stars on Caldecott Hill today. I asked my staff to check with MediaCorp whether this was necessary. They were told that the safety of the actors and actresses is a primary consideration. Whenever stunts are performed, maximum precautions are employed, and professional trainers are on hand to help the artistes execute the stunts comfortably and confidently. It does not make sense to have the artistes hurt as this would harm MediaCorp's reputation and production efforts. Nonetheless, I have asked MediaCorp to be extremely careful in deciding whether certain stunts are really necessary.

Let me now turn to Prof. Toh See Kiat's query on PSB funding and licence fees. This has also been raised by several persistent writers in the Forum pages. Let me say that almost all the funds collected go to paying for Public Service Broadcast programmes. These pertain to the production of current affairs, local drama, and minority language TV and radio shows which reflect our Singaporean values and way of life as well as local sports and selected arts programmes. Such local programmes may cost up to 30 times more than canned entertainment programmes acquired overseas and cannot be funded by advertisements alone. For a multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-cultural society like Singapore, PSB programmes are a crucial element of our nation-building efforts.

PSB programmes can either be funded through the collection of radio and TV licence fees, or through Government taxes. We have opted to collect radio and TV licence fees because it is still the best way to fund PSB programmes. The fee is not used to fund local entertainment programmes as these usually attract larger audiences. Compared to other countries such as the UK which also collect TV licence fees, the licence fees in Singapore are relatively low and have remained unchanged since 1994 at $110 per annum for a colour TV licence, or less than $10 per month, and $27 for a car radio licence. They are also low compared to the monthly fees for cable TV, which is something like $35 per month for a basic package. In fact, most HDB residents who have not subscribed to cable TV have been enjoying much better TV reception through cable without having to pay a cent more.

Dr Ho Tat Kin raised the issue of TV Mobile on buses and whether we should review the granting of such licences. Let me say that TV Mobile is part of the move to eventually introduce Digital TV services to Singaporean households. Traditional broadcasting services are giving way to better quality, interactive and mobile forms of digital entertainment and information in developed countries. Already, the US and Europe have launched full scale Digital TV services and are building up their digital programming capabilities with interactive services like email access via TV. Last month's launch of TV Mobile in Singapore, a first in the world, was done after a two-year feasibility study by MediaCorp, Singapore Bus Services, and SMRT, and a one-month public trial in 1999 which received positive public responses. MediaCorp is also currently field-testing terrestrial digital television broadcasting with some 200 homes in preparation for a commercial DTV service launch in the near future. DTV allows numerous new and better services to be introduced, as well as higher quality broadcasts including High Definition TV.

The introduction of new services often involves change in consumer behaviour. Given time, the benefits will become evident. We are living in exciting times; some projects will thrive and others will fail, but we must keep up with the changes and make them work for us. MediaCorp has already taken action to resolve the teething problems encountered with TV Mobile. They are installing additional transmitters to improve reception and also lowering the sound levels in buses. MediaCorp will also be looking into other suggestions by the public to improve TV Mobile. It is in MCS' interest to win over the public to the value and benefits of TV Mobile.

Dr Ho also asked whether there are plans to introduce this scheme to other modes of transport. The answer is yes. If it works well, it will be extended to the MRT and taxis. But, of course, we have to first overcome some public resistance in the area of buses. Perhaps one way could be for the bus commuters to buy a very simple radio set, which may cost no more than $10 with earphones, which can be tuned to channel 89.3, and they will be able to receive the voice over the TV. In that situation, we will be able to lower the volume of the TV set.

Let me now deal with issues raised by various Members regarding the arts scene. The development of Singaporean arts and artists lies at the core of our Renaissance City vision and the bulk of funding has gone into major grants for top arts organisations. The new two-year and annual grant schemes are aimed at advancing the professional development of our local arts companies. With more support, arts companies will be able to improve the quality of their productions. To date, four companies have received the two-year grant and 13 companies the annual grant. I think the total sum involved for all these 17 companies is something like $3.8 million. Because of the additional funding available from this new Renaissance City scheme, the funds that would otherwise have gone into these 17 companies can now be made available to other companies. Hopefully, many more small arts companies would be able to benefit. Many, in fact, are working with PA in the CCs and elsewhere. NAC itself has to be selective because we have to really groom up the best and not just support all and sundry who want to dabble in the arts.

More funds have also been expended on arts training. NAC has set up new schemes for skills development and professional arts scholarships. We recognise that arts practitioners, arts managers and production personnel are crucial to the production process of the arts. The Professional Skills Development fund is to provide opportunities for them to upgrade their skills through short-term training courses locally or abroad. NAC's Professional Scholarship Scheme has been set up to provide financial assistance to arts managers and practitioners who wish to pursue full-time undergraduate or postgraduate studies overseas.

We are also intensifying efforts to give international exposure to our top artists. Examples of arts groups that have performed overseas include the T'ang Quartet, the Singapore Chinese Orchestra, TheatreWorks, and Singapore Dance Theatre. Singapore will also be participating in the prestigious Venice Biennale this June. The Biennale features top and emerging visual artists like painters and sculptors from around the world.

Major arts events will be improved upon qualitatively and quantitatively. The SPH-NAC Golden Point award, for example, will include a poetry section for the first time this year, while the National Piano and Violin Competition has plans to go regional in the near future. Other activities that will contribute to the vibrancy of the arts scene include Nokia Singapore Art and the Singapore Writers Festival.

We have also intensified arts outreach to the masses by bringing the arts to the community in the heartlands. One of the activities targeted at the HDB heartland was the Community Arts Day last October, which was jointly organised by NAC and Sembawang-Hong Kah CDC. Another is the NAC-Shell Community Arts series of outdoor concerts, held at town centres, such as Clementi, Hougang and Yishun. NAC also actively collaborates with the private sector to bring the arts to the working population. NAC joins hands with Raffles City to bring Arts in the City, a series of regular lunchtime concerts at the Raffles City Atrium, now into its third year.

We have also expanded our arts education programme to more schools and students. Currently we cover 86% of schools and more than 50% of the student population. The AEP, which aims to bring the arts to every student through exposure, experience and excursion programmes, was extended to Institutes of Technical Education for the first time last year. NAC hopes the AEP will reach out to all schools by 2005.

Similarly, the National Heritage Board (NHB) works closely with Ministry of Education to promote awareness of our multi-ethnic heritage among the younger generation. NHB's outreach activities include the Community Involvement Programme for schools, the Heritage Badge for uniformed groups, travelling exhibitions, educational workshops, talks, cultural performances and other activities. NHB will be holding the inaugural Heritage Festival this month. The activities of the week-long festival, such as talks, music and dance performances and demonstrations of traditional games, will take place in various parts of the island.

We are still at an early stage of our cultural development. In terms of the number of arts events, artists and audiences, we are behind cities like Melbourne and Hong Kong, let alone London and New York. The Renaissance funds increased per capita annual arts expenditure from about $7 (before the report) to $9 last year. This is still modest compared to the cultural capitals of the world. For example, London's per capita spending is S$108, 12 times higher than ours while Hong Kong's is nearly four times higher at S$33. Nevertheless, our modest increase of 30% last year is a relatively big step for us.

I would like to thank Dr Jennifer Lee for her support of the arts and for her comments on the NAC. I think the NAC has been doing a good job and it is true to some extent that it is difficult for NAC to juggle both the roles of promoter as well as a funder and regulator. This is why for plays like Talaq, it has been necessary for PELU, which is under the Ministry of Home Affairs, to take the final decision, based on various considerations, including the views of MUIS concerning the religious sensitivity of the play. The Ministry of Home Affairs has suggested that this function be transferred to MITA. This is something that we are now actively considering. If it does come to MITA, then I think the licensing and approval functions will go under our Films and Publications Department and NAC will concentrate on the promotion of the arts. 6.00 pm

I would like to assure all Members that in approving the staging of plays and funding for the arts, we exercise sensitivity and flexibility so that local and international works with artistic merit, even some difficult and provocative ones, could be encouraged in Singapore. But at the same time, we acknowledge that public funding for the arts should be prudent so as not to project wrong social values and to cause societal conflict. For example, NAC did not fund the musical Rent as it presented homosexuality and alternative lifestyles as an accepted way of life.

I would like to reiterate that MITA has clear guidelines and criteria for the support of art productions. They include artistic merits and track records of applicants. However, for private sponsorship of the arts, we would like to leave it to the respective corporations to decide.

Mr Chew Heng Ching: Sir, I move on to the next cut. In raising this cut, I would just like to ask the Minister if he will update the House on the construction of the new National Library building, next to the Bras Basah Complex. In particular, he may like to tell us why the National Library Board has recently decided to pursue a develop-and-construct approach to the project as distinct from the design-and-build contract arrangement which was earlier envisaged. Will this new approach result in financial savings for the Government? Will the completion of the new National Library building be further delayed?

Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Sir, some years ago, the NLB and the PCF collaborated on a very praiseworthy initiative to start community children's libraries (CCLs). And currently, the CCLs are doing a good job, promoting reading among the very young.

Sir, in the new economy where we want to have a good quality workforce, reading skills will be very important for self-learning in this lifelong learning process. So indeed, it was a surprise to me to find out that there is no line item in the budget for MITA, specifically for community children's libraries. As I understand it, it is run from savings made in other parts of the NLB budget and while I must praise the executives, like Dr Christopher Chia in NLB, I think it is not right for incidental scraps from the other pieces of the budget to be given to CCLs which is a very important initiative.

Many of the CCLs, as I understand it, are operating on a deficit and even those who want to introduce innovative financing schemes, such as conducting fee-based courses, are not allowed to do so in case they run afoul of their charitable status. I would like to urge the Minister to consider more specific funding for CCL because this would be needed to train librarians at their local levels so that the level of professionalism would be high and they will be able to institute innovative programmes for the young. This would also mean more books, magazines, comics, CDs and other resources that would teach children to be literate and to love books, and, of course, finally, for the operational costs of the CCLs.

Mr Ravindran: First of all, let me congratulate the National Library Board for doing an excellent job in developing the new libraries, particularly, at the regional centres.

Let me move on to the topic of CCLs. Sir, the Prime Minister, in opening the first Community Children's Library in Marine Parade, called for the creation of 100 CCLs in Singapore. Since then, many CCLs have been developed in many HDB estates. However, with the creation of these regional libraries, there appears to be a tussle for the same target users of children below the age of 12 years group. The only difference in the two types of libraries is that membership at the NLB libraries is free, while at the CCLs, they are charged $24 per year. In view of the location of the regional libraries, there are books catering also to adult family members and an equally good collection of children's books. They actually end up competing with CCLs for the same age group child users. In the light of this competition and the fact that CCLs are heavily subsidised by the local PCF committee, I would like to ask the Minister whether MITA intends to fully develop all 100 CCLs as originally envisaged or whether there will be a rethink on this matter.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: Sir, can I take the two cuts together?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: (In Mandarin): Sir, recently, there was a very popular Chinese movie whose title in English was Crouching Tiger and Hidden Dragon. I did not understand the meaning of it. Subsequently, I learnt that the Chinese title to this movie was Wo hu cang long. The English title appears to be a literal translation of the Chinese title and, as it appears, it makes no sense at all.

A couple of weeks ago, I came across a bilingual booklet published by the Speak Mandarin Campaign Committee. On one of the pages, I saw a name which sounded somewhat familiar - Wu Jun Gang. I did not know who it was referring to. It was only when I read the Chinese section that I realised that it was referring to me, but my name "Goh Choon Kang" was spelt as "Wu Jun Gang". I do not know who translated it, but I guess it must have been translated by a Chinese national who does not know the who's who in Singapore.

From these two examples, we can see that very often, people do not pay much attention to the translation work. The talents in the field of translation are often not accorded the recognition and respect they deserve. Probably, this is due to a lack of awareness of the importance of the translators or interpreters among our people. Perhaps, they are misled by preconceived ideas that, with the implementation of bilingualism in our education system, everybody knows two languages and therefore there is no need for translation.

Recently, we were made a laughing stock. The Chinese version of our publicity booklet "Contact Singapore" was distributed in China. In this booklet, the Prime Minister of Singapore was wrongly translated as Shou Xiang instead of Zong Li. The language used in this booklet was also full of mistakes. A reader of Lianhe Zaobao wrote to the newspaper and described it as unbearable. Many Singaporeans feel that this is indeed a disgrace to Singapore. Actually, we do not lack talents in this field, but the trouble is they have not been accorded the due stature and respect they deserve.

The title of Prime Minister can be expressed in Chinese in two distinct ways. Generally, "Prime Minister" is translated as Zong Li. It is only in countries where the monarchy system is practised, eg, Japan, the United Kingdom, Thailand, that the Prime Minister is known as Shou Xiang in Chinese. If we were to address our Prime Minister as Shou Xiang, then our President will become a King.

This issue may appear to have no relevance to MITA. But, had the translation of this publicity booklet been vetted by the Translation Section of MITA, such unnecessary mistakes could have been avoided, and we can be spared the agony of being disgraced.

To my understanding, there are only four translators in the Chinese Translation Section in MITA today. If all translation works required by the various ministries are to be undertaken by this small section of translators, then they would not be able to cope.

Now that we are going regional and global, I think we should also recognise the importance of translation experts. We must give them the proper remuneration and promptly groom up their successors. Right now, it is very difficult to recruit good translators and interpreters. Even in Parliament itself, there is great difficulty in recruiting good part-time interpreters. I observe that veteran interpreter like Mr Lee Seng Giap has been helping out here for a very long time, and he has still to come here to assist our resident interpreter even today.

I would like to suggest that the Government seriously consider the setting up of a Central Translation Bureau, and recruit some first-class translators to provide all the official translations of the Government, like the way it is done in Hong Kong, so as to avoid the kind of mistakes committed in the "Contact Singapore" pamphlet.

Attractive remuneration package must be offered to attract some first-class translators to translate the official documents and publications of the Government which will be authoritative and to support the public relations officers of the various Government Ministries. This is necessary also because it is very difficult to get bilingual people to be our Public Relations Officer. By so doing, we will be able to establish translation and interpretation as a profession.

Next, I would like to raise another related issue, that is, the setting up of a committee on standardised translation of names and terms. Right now, we have an informal kind of committee in charge of standardised translation of names and terms. The members come from the Chinese media and representatives from MITA.

I have been the Chairman of this committee for the past three years. I feel that the kind of work undertaken by this committee is very important, albeit very few people know of its existence. The important main task of this committee is to come out with a standardised translation of all new terms so that all Chinese media, TV stations, newspapers, etc, could adopt. This committee has published a number of booklets, like the booklet on the standardisation of translation of Government departments, IT terminologies and economic terminologies, etc. These are all very useful publications.

However, because this committee is informal, organisationally it is a bit loose and it lacks authority. If we can officially establish a committee on standardised translation of names and terms, and secure an expert in this field to head the committee, then the committee will be more authoritative and more effective.

Dr Ho Tat Kin: Sir, the Singapore Film Commission has been formed to promote the film industry in Singapore. It was the right decision that has helped fund many budding film producers locally. Sir, I would like to know what progress has been made so far. How much has been spent and what achievements have been made? What are some of the fundamental issues confronting the film industry and what measures would be taken to overcome them? I would like to suggest to the Singapore Film Commission to widen its scope of work to include the nurture and training of local talents for both the front end and back end production of local movies. When bringing in instructors and course leaders, we should widen the scope to include also professionals from the East - from Hong Kong, from China and Japan - where there are many well-known producers.

The Singapore Film Commission should also help in building up the supporting industry, such as dubbing, animation and post-production houses. Sir, the Singapore Film Commission could work closely with the Singapore Tourism Board to promote Singapore as a good location for making movies. Promoting Singapore as an international production centre, we encourage the use of Singapore location, service facilities and personnel. We could provide financial incentives for foreign film makers to come to Singapore. For example, the Yukon Film Commission in Canada offers a travel rebate to assist production companies in the course of getting there. And the Yukon labour rebate will be given up to 35% of wages paid for eligible Yukon labour working on foreign productions. Bringing foreign production houses to Singapore will produce many good job and career development opportunities for local talents. It will allow a local talent to work with international big budget movies with opportunities for international exposure.

Sir, shall I move on to the next one?

The Chairman: We will let Mr David Lim reply first.

The Minister of State for Information and the Arts (Mr David T. E. Lim): Thank you very much, Sir. I shall try to be brief, in view of the fact that time is running on.

I will take the cuts first on the questions on the National Library and the Community Children's Library (CCL). But before I do so, I would just want to make a point about public education.

In a speech on Monday, when this House debated the Minister for Finance's Budget Statement, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua spoke of the psychological divide between those who understand and accept change, and those who do not. I think that this is an important idea that we should give some attention to. What challenges and divides us are not just the things we have or do not have, but the understanding and rapport we have or do not have with each other. Her plea was that the Government should do more to close this divide through public education and, specifically, that more should be done to explain Government policy. I agree, but public education is a broad concept that applies also to raising the general level of awareness and knowledge, not just of public policies or technical subjects, but also of the arts and of general knowledge. In our society, where we will become more diverse in interests and viewpoints, a broader knowledge of the world around us will give people more common points to relate to each other.

It is in this context that our libraries contribute significantly to this broad goal. I thank the speakers who have acknowledged the accomplishments of our Library Board. They have achieved a revolutionary breakthrough in their mission to enhance interest and capacity for learning among Singaporeans. They have tried out innovative ideas like the Library@Orchard, and the use of radio frequency technology to facilitate the loan and return of books. By sheer hard work, I think they have achieved international attention and recognition, and I am glad to say that Singaporeans can look forward to a new National Library building in the year 2004.

Let me turn to Mr Chew's specific question about the NLB building. The NLB tender for the new NLB building was originally intended to be awarded as a design contract and a separate construction contract. The design contract was awarded to a consortium led by Swan & MacLaren Architects. As the project progressed, however, the NLB became dissatisfied with the consortium, as they were unable to assign adequate resources to the project and the project had begun to slip behind schedule. However, the consortium had already completed the architectural schematic design for the new building.

So, NLB then decided to complete the project under a develop-and-construct arrangement, in order to avoid further delays and slippage to the project schedule. This arrangement is a variation of the design-and-build approach. Under design-and-build, the contractor undertakes design responsibility, in addition to the construction and completion of the building. In this instance, however, there was no need for a re-design of the building, since the schematic design had already been done. For NLB's develop-and-construct approach, a main contractor will undertake detailed design, based on the completed architectural schematic design, and construct the building. This saves time and costs.

In addition, under this approach, the NLB maintains control over design integrity, through the schematic design, while the contractor, being responsible for detailed design, will be able to enhance the construction buildability, design efficiency, and construction methodology to boost productivity and also, thereby, to reclaim whatever cost savings that may be possible.

Such arrangements are in line with the Building and Construction Authority's Construction 21 strategy to upgrade the professionalism of the construction industry. NLB called the tender on 19th January this year, and expects the new NLB building to be completed in 2004. Since the tender has not yet been awarded I cannot give you specific cost data and whether or not there will be savings.

On the subject of libraries, let me now turn to CCLs. NLB has a special commitment to our young readers, and we do believe in inculcating the reading habit from a young age. And, because of this, we have set up special children's sections in both regional and community libraries, as Mr Ravindran has pointed out. But Mr Ravindran and Prof Toh have raised quite different points of view. Prof Toh thinks we should put more money in; Mr Ravindran thinks that, perhaps, some CCLs should not be built because these facilities are duplicated in the regional and community libraries.

The issue is not just one of money. CCLs are intended as complementary facilities, but, when we locate them in void decks, we brought the library closer to the homes of young children. In doing so, however, we limited the range of books and facilities that we can offer, and that is because they now serve a much smaller catchment, so you cannot have them on a same scale. Some parents, therefore, prefer to bring their children to the community libraries and regional libraries because of the wider variety of books and facilities, and also because it is free. Others prefer the convenience of having a library near their homes, so they take them to the CCLs.

So CCLs can only work well if we have the support of the community where they are located. If there are sufficient numbers of parents in the locality who want this facility and a critical mass can be formed, then there will be enough scale to make a success of the project. But CCLs that lack community will not succeed even with more Government funds.

Let me now move to Dr Ho's query on the film industry in Singapore. Dr Ho will be happy to know that, over the last three years, from 1998 to 2000, Singapore produced 17 feature films, or an average of about six films a year. One, "Eating Air", has been shown at the Deauville Asian Film Festival in France just recently. Another five are in production or have been completed, and should be released this year. The Film Commission has also given out six letters of intent so far for feature film investment. One film, "Chicken Rice War", which you may have caught, has been released. One is in production, three are looking for top-up funds, and the last one withdrew because it already has enough funds. But compared with the early 1960s, the heydays of our film industry, we are still some way behind. Then, we produced 18 films a year; now, we are only doing about six.

To give a boost to this industry, the Commission takes a more generous approach when it comes to giving grants for short films, because it is on short films that film makers cut their teeth. Last year, it awarded grants for 35 short films, bringing the overall total to 66 grants made since 1988. The Commission also believes in the importance of nurturing local talent. To this end, it has awarded two overseas scholarships and 11 bursaries, and has invited eight well-known film makers and experts to conduct special seminars, master classes and scriptwriting workshops in Singapore. I agree with Dr Ho's suggestion that getting film makers to produce their movies in Singapore will generate spin-offs for the economy in general, and the local film industry in particular, and MITA will encourage the Film Commission to continue their work with EDB, STB and other industry experts to make Singapore a regional hub for film production.

Finally, I turn to Mr Goh's comments on the need for a Central Translation Bureau and standards of translation in Singapore. I agree with Mr Goh concerning his observations that we need to do more to raise the standards. Mr Goh has pointed out the difficulty of hiring highly proficient translators in the civil service, and this is a need that needs to be seriously addressed.

Mr Goh has proposed that we set up a Central Translation Bureau. This may not solve the problem. The translation and interpretation services in the Government were decentralised in 1981 and reviewed in 1985. We felt that this decentralised arrangement is better, as translators and interpreters need to be aware of the relevant policies and the use of correct terms. So placing them out with the different Ministries and Organs of State is better.

Under this arrangement, MITA's Translation Service Section focuses its resource only on its core responsibility of providing translation services to Government leaders, and translating MITA materials meant for public consumption. But I agree with Mr Goh that we should upgrade our professional translation standards, and MITA will raise this with PSD and work with it to see how the scheme of service for translators and interpreters can be made more attractive.

Mr Goh has also suggested that MITA standardise the translation of certain terms, especially the names of titles and programmes in the Government. I agree with his suggestion, and MITA will consider Mr Goh's suggestion to formalise and appoint a Translation Standardisation Committee.

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Sir, transparency and accountability are principles by which democratic governments are governed by these days. The change in the culture of governance has, in part, been motivated by a desire, as far as possible, and without compromising on national security, to free up information to the people so as to allow them to make informed choices. Not only that, it also serves as a check against the excesses of government. Increasingly, there is much expectation by the people for the government to free up as much information as possible. Knowledge is, of course, power. It will be difficult to fully justify our position as a knowledge-based economy if there are many plugs to information flows. Besides, there is always this deep-seated suspicion, if government and public affairs are constantly shrouded in secrecy.

In many western countries, freedom of information legislation is becoming increasingly a necessary part of the statutory landscape. In the US, for instance, it has a Freedom of Information Act that enables its citizens to gain access to records kept by government departments and agencies. In the UK, the government periodically reviews and declassifies information for release to the public. It goes without saying that the fact that many of these documents will one day be public documents, does have a salutary effect on civil servants and politicians.

Sir, broadly, there are two facets to the issue of freedom of information. First, there is a right of the individual to information amassed on him by others. Very often, decisions are made based on information provided by others. For those who are affected by adverse decisions, it would be unfortunate indeed if they are not given a clue as to, or the opportunity to know, the basis on which these decisions are made. I can, for instance, think of appraisal records, or the reason behind certain administrative decisions. At the very least, if such information is made available to the person, there is an opportunity to have these records corrected, if they were erroneous. Secondly, freedom of information envisages the regular reviews of public documents and information for release to the public, if possible.

In undertaking this exercise, besides the issue of transparency and accountability, it will also have the effect of educating our people on the circumstances surrounding certain events and why certain decisions or policies are taken. This will help our posterity in avoiding some of the errors perhaps that were committed earlier.

Sir, for the above reasons, I would therefore, urge the Minister to consider looking into the possibility of enacting a Freedom of Information Act.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Encik Yatiman Yusof): Sir, in reply to Mr Sin Boon Ann's query on the freedom of information, MITA recognises that the National Archives of Singapore is a rich repository of historical data and pictures that are invaluable to researchers and historians. In Singapore, the majority of public records transferred to the National Archives are systematically appraised, declassified and released in consultation with the relevant Ministries. As stipulated in the National Heritage Board Act in 1993 and in line with international practice, most of the materials in the archives are made available for public consultation after a 25-year period. Records which contain sensitive information may have a longer embargo period.

Mr Sin cited the situation in other countries - the US, Canada and UK. I would like to point out that although the US and Canada each has a Freedom of Information Act, the release of information is still subject to certain disclosure conditions. For example, the disclosure of records must not be injurious to the conduct of the Government, threaten the safety of individuals or nation, and so on.

Mr Chew Heng Ching: Sir, on behalf of Members who spoke, I thank the Minister and his colleagues for their replies. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (2), Prof Toh.

Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head R of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code RA 1500.

Sir, I would just like to ask the Minister, in the light of the increase in sexual crimes on girls due to Internet use, what is the Government doing to make the Internet safe and what funds are given to PAG(i), the Parents Advisory Group for Internet to raise awareness of parents and children. 6.30 pm

Encik Yatiman Yusof: Sir, Prof. Toh See Kiat has expressed concern about whether current laws are adequate to protect unsuspecting people, especially children surfing the Internet. Sir, Internet has always remained as a medium to exchange views freely and anonymously. It will remain so for a long time. In our view, instead of resorting to legislation, it will be more meaningful to emphasise common sense and public awareness on the dangers of Internet. Public education, for example, through PAG(i) is another effort that we could mention. It is one of the approaches that could help to achieve this objective. However, those who misuse the Internet anonymity to engage in criminal activities, such as molest or rape, as have been reported on a number of occasions in our newspapers, would be dealt with severely according to our law in Singapore.

Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (3). Mr Ravindran.

Mr Ravindran: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head R of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code RG 3100.

Sir, first of all, I must commend the Media Corporation of Singapore (MCS) on the improvements made in the quality of television programmes. I would like to highlight some good and negative points of the various channels run by MCS. Let me first start off with Channel NewsAsia.

I am happy to note that Channel NewsAsia has distinguished itself as an Asian television station with a deep understanding of Asian affairs. Their current affairs programmes have intellectual depth, and they have always got the best in the different fields to comment on issues affecting the region. In doing so, they have managed to capture a good segment of the political, business and academic audience. I congratulate them on their excellent work and I hope that they will make this Channel a station to be watched by everyone with a keen interest in Asia.

However, I must ask MCS to look at two important issues. The first is the inadequate reach of Channel NewsAsia in the neighbouring countries. There is no provision for Channel NewsAsia in many of the leading hotels in the region and I hope that MCS will work harder to sell Channel NewsAsia in the region. The second is the parallel broadcast of Channel NewsAsia programmes in the morning from 6.30 to 9.30 on both Channel 5 and Channel NewsAsia. I think this is a pure waste of time and I hope that the Ministry can look into how best the broadcast time-slots can be better used on Channel 5 during this time period.

Let me move on to Channel 5. The issue of having multi-ethnic casts in local dramas is a matter of concern to many Singaporeans. It is no use for the Prime Minister and other leaders to talk about multi-racialism and integration if the broadcast media, which is a macrocosm of Singapore society, does not reflect the same in its programmes. We must show Singaporeans and the world which watch our programmes that we are indeed a multi-racial society and our programmes must reflect this. We do not want the world to think that Singapore is a Chinese, Malay or an Indian society, depending on what language is used in the Singapore drama. I have given up hope that MCS has understood the numerous calls from the public to re-assess the way it portrays Singapore society, especially one that involves Singapore society and multi-ethnic Singapore. The new dramas fail to truly reflect Singapore society. This could be due to the fact that both Channels 5 and 8 are under the same corporate management, while Suria and Vasantham Central are under a different corporate management. We have to carefully look to see whether the MCS management, producers and scriptwriters of local programmes really understand Singapore society, whether they do mingle and have friends from various ethnic groups, and if they do not, whether there is a need for a process of orientating these key individuals on what makes Singapore unique and their important role in reflecting this tapestry of Singapore society in their work.

I look forward to the day where many more television productions, which are truly local and multi-racial, are produced and which reflect Singapore society as they are. I hope the new station under MediaWorks will not follow the ingrained footprints of MCS, but is creative and bold enough to reflect the real Singapore society in their dramas and other programmes. If the broadcast media does not understand this important role and do something about it, then we can continue to talk about multi-racialism and integration until the cows come home, literally, the task of preserving and promoting multi-racialism would certainly become an uphill one.

Let me move on to Vasantham Central and be brief here. First of all, I must say that programmes on Vasantham Central have improved very drastically. Last year, I highlighted that there was a need to reconsider whether Hindi movies could be moved to Suria. Indeed, what I notice is that Suria now has Hindi movies, but in addition to the slots on Vasantham Central. My first question is: is there a need to broadcast Hindi movies on both Suria and Vasantham Central when the idea was to free up Vasantham Central for more Tamil educational programmes? The second query that I have is, in the light of comments made on Hindi movies in Malaysia, whether there have been similar comments on Hindi movies in Singapore and whether the Ministry is looking into this matter.

Lastly, in respect of local sporting programmes, I would like to urge MCS to see whether we can increase funding for local sports broadcasts, particularly live events and especially school competitions. Those are my comments, and I hope that the Minister can look into them.

Encik Yatiman Yusof: Mr Ravindran raised four questions in relation to our television programming, Channel NewsAsia, Channel 5, Vasantham Central and Sportscity. I would like to say that he has been following the developments in Channel NewsAsia and we are happy to learn that he is now saying that it is making good progress. Of course, I realise that Channel NewsAsia is moving to expand its coverage in the region, and it is doing it stage by stage. I understand that CNA has been sending its people to India, Nepal and Thailand and that this is the kind of marketing which requires time. I believe the time will come when the Member visits New Delhi, he will see Channel NewsAsia being shown there. We do hope that when he is in Cambodia, he will be able to see news reporting by Channel NewsAsia. I think it has been done now but it takes some time.

On the need to have multi-ethnicity projected through our television media, I think this is a critical question. I do agree that it is important for our media, especially the local media, to project the kind of multi-ethnicity that Singapore possesses, its richness and the way multi-ethnicity in Singapore develops and works. But we must recognise that there is a limit. For example, if you have a drama on classical Chinese stories, shot somewhere in Beijing, it is impossible to have Indian or Malay characters be placed into that kind of story. But on local modern dramas produced in Singapore, I think it is crucial for the Channel to reflect the reality of our country and use this to their advantage. I think the scriptwriters are aware of this requirement and I have seen a number of them making efforts to move into this area of projecting Malay/Indian characters in Chinese dramas and likewise in the Malay dramas, you have Indian characters who could speak in Malay, trying to interact with the Malay actors to project the reality in Singapore. But, as I said earlier, this requires some time.

On the question of Vasantham Central, we will ask MediaCorp to look into it and see how Suria and Vasantham Central could also play this role of projecting multi-ethnicity to their respective communities.

Finally, on Sportscity, I understand that sports is a very passionate event. It is very close to our hearts and as locals, it is not wrong for us to expect Sportscity to cover more local events. But we leave it to MediaCorp to decide because there is also the economic consideration. They must weigh the balance between the viability of the programme, its attractiveness and our objective of projecting the local sports event. On the Hindi Channel as is happening in Malaysia, I would ask MediaCorp to look into it.

Mr Ravindran: I would like to ask for clarification on the point of broadcast times of Channel NewsAsia between 6.30 am and 9.30 am.

Encik Yatiman Yusof: As far as broadcasting of the news in Channel 5 as well as Channel NewsAsia is concerned, we understand that this is not an easy solution. The ideal solution, and what I believe the Member would like to have, would be to see the two channels showing different programmes, because Singaporeans wishing to watch news could just switch to Channel NewsAsia and switch to Channel 5 for something different. But the cost of producing separate programmes is high and running different shows in the morning when the viewership is low may cost financial strains on MediaCorp. Nevertheless, I would still take Mr Ravindran's suggestion and hope that MediaCorp would look into it seriously.

Mr Ravindran: Sir, I do hope that MCS will have the creative juices to think how to make use of this broadcast time between 6.30 am and 9.30 am, because if they cannot even make use of this simple time-slot, I do not know how they are going to compete when MediaWorks comes on the scene, because naturally, people will tend to move towards MediaWorks. I guess this is what competition is all about.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (4).

Mr Ravindran: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head R of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code RI 3100.

Sir, the heritage centres being set up by the Government are a very commendable effort to showcase the heritage of the different communities of Singapore. These heritage centres would certainly transmit the cultures, traditions and sense of history of the different communities in Singapore. They also have the potential of attracting tourists and other visitors. I would like to ask the Minister to update the developments on the Chinese and Malay Heritage Centres. I would also like to know what steps the Ministry has taken to develop the Indian Heritage Centre and whether the Ministry has taken any pro-active steps to bring together interested organisations to move on with the projects.

Encik Yatiman Yusof: Sir, MITA's concerted efforts to cultivate the arts are also evident in the preservation and promotion of local heritage. Mr Ravindran asked about Government's support for the Indian Heritage Centre. In 1992, the Government agreed to the provision of suitable premises on nominal leases to the Chinese, Malay, Indian and Eurasian communities for their respective community heritage centres. The Government has also agreed to the provision of one-off matching grants for each heritage centre to enable them to set up endowment funds. The grant will be a dollar-to-dollar matching basis against funds raised by the communities for their respective endowment funds, subject to a cap of $5 million, $2 million, $1 million and $0.25 million for the Chinese, Malay, Indian and Eurasian communities respectively.

We welcome the efforts of each community to set up centres for the promotion of their heritage. The Chinese Heritage Centre has been in existence since 1992 and I am pleased to inform him that the groundwork for the Malay Heritage Centre is progressing very well. MITA would thus encourage the Indian community to set up an Indian Heritage Centre and the National Heritage Board would be happy to extend its support and assistance in setting up such a centre.

Mr Ravindran: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $223,554,120 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $188,232,200 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The Chairman: Order. It is 6.45 pm.

Thereupon, Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2001/2002, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.