1ST APRIL 2003 TO 31ST MARCH 2004 (Paper Cmd. 4 of 2003)

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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head J (cont.) -

Resumption of Debate on Question [13th March, 2003],

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head J of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Dr Ong Chit Chung].

Question again proposed.

Mr Chandra Mohan K. Nair (Nominated Member): Sir, with your permission, I would like to take the three items, (d), (e) and (f), together.

The mission statement of the Ministry of Defence is "to enhance Singapore's peace and security, and should deterrence and diplomacy fail, to secure a swift and decisive victory over the aggressor".

The defence budget for 2003 is over $8 billion and for 2002 it was also over $8 billion. This is a lot of money. It is the largest budget compared to the next Ministry, which I believe is that of Education, having a budget of about $6.5 billion. All of us would like to see this money being available for use for good deeds - I am not saying that the Defence Ministry is not one - including for poor people and retrenched workers during this time of retrenchment and slow growth in Singapore. But this is not to be. We are aware that the defence of a country is important and money is required for this. However, I ask the Ministry of Defence: do we need to spend so much? Can the sum not be reduced during these difficult times? Would it be dangerously and critically insecure for Singapore if the budget is reduced, even reduced drastically, and if so, why? Please give us the reasons why this sum cannot be reduced. We are all aware of the need to have a deterrent force, fully ready for the worst scenario. However, we have never had a war on major conflict since independence in 1965. The last was in the 1960s during the Indonesian Confrontation. It has been 40 years since then, and we have had peace all along, both in Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia.

I take it that we are always concerned about, if at all, Malaysia and Indonesia. I take it that there is no real or perceived threat from any other external forces, no other ASEAN country or any other foreign country, except perhaps in today's context, terrorists, depending on how we define this term. There is so much talk about war and terrorism these days. It is all gloom and, added to that, the economic gloom. Why is there so little talk of peace and harmony by our leaders and all the international statesmen and spiritual leaders - if they are speaking about good and peace for the world? Please give it all the prime time airing. And I urge the press, radio and television to report them, instead of months of Bush and Saddam conflict. It may not even be US-Iraq conflict, mind you, and Prime Minister Tony Blair of England, and it may not even be England that wants to go to war.

Ideally, in my view, all countries should have a Ministry of Peace, and not Ministry of Defence. And Ministers all over the world should make it their primary objective to reduce conflict, reduce build-up of armaments, nuclear weapons or any form of arms build-up and accessories, including war planes, warships, army tanks, artillery and a whole host of weaponry. And that is what causes the increase in defence budget, is it not? And who benefits economically - the big corporations, manufacturers of armaments, builders of planes, ships, etc, USA, France and the big powers? I am not sure whether Singapore is involved. If so, let us reflect and search our souls.

Of course, the increase in military personnel in the Army, Air Force and Navy and support administrative staff goes to increase the budget. Hopefully, all the computerisation would reduce the cost but, then, computerisation is expensive too. My guess is that we fear aggression from Malaysia and Indonesia; Malaysia fears Singapore, and Indonesia and perhaps Thailand; Indonesia fears Singapore, Malaysia and perhaps Australia. We all fear each other in our minds. Are these fears real or perceived? Are all the three or four countries that I have talked about and their top military generals and Defence Ministers theorising a lot? Are they being realistic? Am I being realistic?

Probably since the 1960s, after our independence in 1965, which has been about 37 years, the generals have been harbouring this fear, I believe. In a sense, it makes them all relevant and feel important. There should be a new thinking by political, military, and spiritual leaders, and our citizens should play a greater role in being critical of people who talk about war and conflict. They must justify their actions and remove all the secrecy which does not help at all for either Singapore, Malaysia or Indonesia. Individually, all of us are peace loving. Our Ministers, military generals, defence officials and citizens all want peace and harmony, a decent job and a happy family. That is all we ask for. That must be the same with Malaysia and Indonesia, is it not, and USA, UK and Iraq or any country for that matter? But when individual human beings take on important roles in the institution of government, things strangely change. How come? Please review all our positions and search our souls to do good for Singapore and other nations.

I therefore urge our Ministry of Defence to initiate this process of creating a Ministry of Peace, and for the United Nations and the rest of the world to seriously consider and come up with workable solutions. And through this process, defence budgets could be drastically reduced and made available to other Ministries and for the good of our people.

Mr R. Ravindran (Marine Parade): Sir, MINDEF has always maintained parallel diplomatic communication links with all major defence forces all over the world, in particular with our neighbouring countries. And such excellent diplomatic relation has stood the test of time even during crisis, even with countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia.

What I would like to ask the Minister for Defence is: what additional steps MINDEF has in place to increase greater defence cooperation and diplomatic communication with the various defence forces, particularly those involving our strategic partners and the neighbouring countries?

The Chairman: Dr Ong Chit Chung, you can take both cuts together.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Jurong): Sir, earlier on, Mr Chandra Mohan asked whether he was realistic. The answer clearly is no. It reminds me of Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of England in the late 1930s. He met up with Hitler and he came back to England and waved a piece of paper and said, "Peace at hand", and immediately after that, Hitler invaded France and other parts of Europe. And Chamberlain lived in shame in history.

We cannot take peace for granted. To have peace, you must be prepared for war and you must be prepared to take your defences seriously so that with deterrence, peace will prevail. But if you let down your guard, you would have no peace at all because people would take you for an easy ride. And this is what we in Singapore should not do. So we should not be saying out in public about playing down our defences because then, we would be defenceless. To have peace, you must be prepared for war, and with deterrence, war will never occur. That is our best bet for our security.

Sir, if you look at the new strategic landscape in South-east Asia, we can see that all the more we should give special attention and priority to defence. We face not only conventional threats, but also low intensity conflicts and operations, terrorist attacks and threats. So far, Sir, the SAF has concentrated on conventional threats and operations. Is the SAF able, in these new circumstances, to adapt and reorientate itself to take on both conventional threats and low intensity operations? We want to know whether the SAF is trained well and is ready for it for the new tasks ahead. We know that the SAF trains rigorously here in Singapore as well as in many overseas countries but some, Sir, are still are unaware of the operational readiness and capability of our armed forces.

Last week, at an informal dialogue session in my constituency, a lady asked me whether SAF soldiers are good in shooting - she goes down to the basic, ie, shooting, although defences and new technology involve more than that - and whether in real combat, our NSmen would be able to take on the regular soldiers of other armed forces. She also wanted to know how our NSmen fare, in comparison with other armed forces, in joint exercises. I assured her, based on my knowledge, that all is well and our troops are well-equipped and well-trained for their tasks. But it is better to hear from the Minister, from the horse's mouth, so to speak, on the state of readiness of our armed forces.

Sir, the Bali bombings of 12th October 2002 have suggested that regional terrorist organisations are both willing and well able to mount sophisticated attacks on soft targets in the region. It is therefore incumbent upon governments in the region to do their utmost to ensure that every potential target within their territories is hardened so as to deter terrorist attack. Every attack that succeeds will only play into the hands of the terrorists as it would send off a signal to foreign investors that South-east Asia is not safe.

If foreign investors pull out, the region, which is still recovering from the financial crisis of 1997/1998, will be in even deeper trouble. Unemployment will continue to be a big problem, especially in the less well-off countries, and this would only prod more restless, embittered young men into the arms of the extremists.

Thus, while it is certainly important to expand sufficient resources on tightening border and immigration controls, cutting terrorist funding and improving intelligence flow and exchanges between domestic and friendly foreign agencies, it is more important, I believe, to deal with the root cause of terrorism in the region.

It is also clear that the governments in the region must take care not to engage in any policy behaviour that inadvertently sends out the message that a particular religion, in this case, Islam, is being targeted. Otherwise, some people may become vulnerable to radical appeals suggesting that they have to take up arms to defend their faith. Eradicating the radical terrorist threat will require more than just law enforcement measures. A coordinated strategy integrating enforcement measures, as well as economic, political and ideologically elements, therefore, is needed.

Sir, on the issue of countering terrorism, the Bali bombings have prodded the Indonesian Government to get off the fence with respect to groups like the JI. It can no longer pretend that the problem with terrorism does not exist in Indonesia and that Indonesians are not involved with the problem.

Since the attacks in the United States on 11th September 2001, efforts have been increased to coordinate regional and international actions against terrorism in South-east Asia. ASEAN has announced increased cooperation at its annual Ministerial Meeting in July/August 2002. During these meetings, the United States also signed an anti-terrorism agreement with ASEAN members on 30th July.

In this regard, I wish to ask the Minister whether we have adequate intelligence cooperation on terrorism with our neighbours. I wish to ask the Minister whether the backbone of JI in the region has been broken, and how successful is our national security secretariat in its work in countering terrorism. Further, I wish to ask the Minister whether SAF is able to deal with terrorist attacks, including chemical and biological attacks.

Sir, over the years, the SAF has participated in various UN peace-keeping missions. Recently, such peace-keeping missions have become larger and larger in scale. The biggest mission so far is to Timor-Leste or East Timor. Sir, I had the opportunity to visit our troops at our peace-keeping mission in Timor-Leste. I must say that I am impressed with the enthusiasm and commitment of our soldiers and airmen. However, there are reports of outbreaks of violence there. Although this does not presage a general breakdown of the new state, it does remind us that the road to building a viable nation state is an arduous one. In any case, peace-keeping missions are temporary and that sometime in the near future, we should complete our mission in Timor-Leste and bring back our troops. I would therefore ask the Minister whether there are any other plans in the future of sending any other mission under US auspices, and what are the benefits to the SAF and Singapore of such UN peace-keeping missions.

The Chairman: Mr Sin Boon Ann is not here. Dr Tan.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam): Sir, I thank Members for their pertinent comments and suggestions on the very important subject of defence and security.

Sir, I will begin with the security environment, a subject that was raised yesterday by Dr Ong Chit Chung, Ms Irene Ng, Mr Sin Boon Ann and Mr Ravindran. The comments and views expressed by the hon. Members reflect how well Singaporeans realise that our security environment is a difficult and uncertain one.

From global developments, to the regional situation, to our homeland, there are forces at work which could have a destabilising effect on Singapore's security. At this time of geopolitical flux, we must put enough effort and resources into enhancing our defence, if we do not want to put Singapore's security at risk.

Sir, there is a general expectation that there will soon be a war in Iraq. Such a war will not only change the face of the Middle East, but it will also have far-reaching ramifications for the whole world. For us, one core issue is that weapons of mass destruction should not be allowed to proliferate.

A similar danger looms in the Korean Peninsula. Here, it is not just the prospect of a nuclear-armed North Korea but the impact of this on the geopolitical landscape in the whole Asia-Pacific region, as the US, China and Japan respond to developments in the Korean Peninsula.

These geopolitical developments at the global level will have consequences for the regional security environment and Singapore's strategic interests. We have limited influence on the policies and actions of the big powers. But we can enhance our security by developing cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships with those countries which share common strategic interests with Singapore, as well as by drawing the heavyweight countries into playing a more active and constructive role in multi-lateral forums which can help stabilise the regional security environment, eg, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF).

In our region, serious political and economic challenges which have beset some countries have yet to be resolved. Economic problems will take some time to be sorted out, as domestic factors are compounded by external factors such as the US economy and a possible war in the Gulf.

Political stability will depend, to some extent, on whether or not socio-economic conditions improve. So long as political and economic conditions remain difficult, there is an increased risk of low intensity conflicts erupting, with consequent destabilising effects on the rest of the region.

The prospect of elections and leadership transitions could also have an impact on political stability. In Indonesia, there will be a more heated political atmosphere, as parties and presidential aspirants jostle in the run-up to the elections next year. In Malaysia, there has also been talk of early general elections, and there is general expectation of a leadership transition this October.

Sir, I want to emphasise that Singapore wants good relations with all our neighbours. But we should not be surprised if, at a time of political changes and economic difficulties, there are those who find it politically advantageous to raise the Singapore bogey. We have had some taste of this recently, with attempts to paint Singapore as unreasonable and greedy, accompanied by wild allegations in a media campaign to whip up anti-Singapore feelings. Even the word "war" and the threat of war have been bandied about irresponsibly by some politicians.

Over the past year-and-a-half, we have also faced the real and present threat of terrorism in our homeland. Singaporeans know how serious the threat is. The arrest of the Jemaah Islamiyah members has dealt a serious blow to the network in Singapore, but terrorism is an enemy we cannot afford to underestimate. The Al Qaeda has not been destroyed. Nor has the Al Qaeda given up its war of terror. We will have to grapple with the threat of terrorism for years to come.

As Members can see, there are many challenges and uncertainties in our security environment. It is against this background that we have to consider our budget for defence, a subject raised by Dr Ong Chit Chung, Mr Sin Boon Ann, Mr Ravindran and Mr Low Thia Khiang. In these difficult times, Members are naturally concerned that the funds allocated for defence are spent wisely and with care to ensure that we get the maximum value for every dollar spent on defence. I want to assure Members that the Government and the Ministry of Defence are very conscious of the need to scrutinise carefully every area of our defence spending to ensure that there is no wastage or unnecessary expenditure of our hard-earned funds.

A word about transparency of defence spending, a subject raised by Mr Low Thia Khiang yesterday. By its very nature, defence procurement and SAF operations are not subjects which can be opened for discussion in public. Doing so will compromise our security. And for this reason, MINDEF has always kept details of its spending secret, and this is the practice in many other countries. This policy has worked and there is no reason to change it.

Sir, in the context of the security environment, which I have outlined, adequate spending on defence is not an optional priority for the Government. Nor is adequate spending on defence just a desirable objective. For Singapore, adequate spending on defence is an absolute necessity.

Security is the basic foundation on which we sustain our nationhood and build Singapore's future. Without security, there can be no economic development or political stability. There will be no foreign investments, for who will want to put money in an insecure small country. And, most critically of all, without security, Singaporeans will have no confidence in our future. Simply put, without a strong and credible SAF, there is no Singapore.

It is in this light that I listened with astonishment to Mr Chandra Mohan's thoughts on defence, military spending and global peace and harmony. Mr Chandra Mohan argues essentially that the less we spend on the military, the greater could be the chances of peace. Sir, the real world is quite different from the rosy picture drawn by Mr Chandra Mohan. The fact of the matter is, no matter how much we may wish it to be so, less military spending does not mean more peace. Adequate defence spending is the insurance premium we have to pay for peace. We have to invest in defence so that we do not need to go to war.

There is nothing more tempting to a potential aggressor than a soft and easy target. If we are weak, those who want to impose their will on us may be tempted to go beyond spouting the rhetoric of war to actually try to use military force to subjugate us or prevent us from pursuing our national interests. If we want peace, we have to prepare for war. This is the basis of our policy of deterrence. We best avoid war not by merely advocating love and peace but by deterring those who may have aggressive designs on our security, territorial integrity and national interests. Potential aggressors must know that the cost of any military adventurism against Singapore would be too high for them.

Sir, let me make one point clear. Singapore is not looking for a fight with anyone. We have put a high priority on developing cooperation and mutually beneficial relations with the countries around us. And we have every interest in seeing our neighbours do well, because an economically thriving and politically stable region is important for Singapore's own security and prosperity.

Singapore desires friendly and cooperative relations with all countries in our region. But such good relations must be based on the fundamental principle that Singapore is a sovereign nation with our own national interests to safeguard and to promote. Having a credible defence capability ensures that we will not be pushed around. The SAF gives us the space to pursue Singapore's own best interests.

Sir, the SAF has been systematically built up over more than three decades. Developing a defence capability takes careful, long-term planning and investment. It requires a strong and steady commitment. It is not possible to build up significant defence capabilities at short notice. We cannot develop our military capabilities in a coherent manner and plan and spend prudently if we adopt a feast-and-famine approach, where we spend only in good years and cut back drastically in bad years.

Security threats can appear much more quickly than it takes to develop the capability to deal with them. The steady commitment of the Singapore Government to developing our defence capability, and the support which Singaporeans give to this, have not escaped the notice of others. It is as much our military hardware as the commitment of the Government and our people to ensuring Singapore's security that underpin our deterrence policy.

Sir, deterrence is one pillar of our defence policy. The second pillar is diplomacy, a subject raised by Dr Ong Chit Chung and Mr Ravindran. Singapore desires friendship and cooperation with other countries, particularly those which share common strategic interests with us. MINDEF therefore puts significant efforts into developing defence relations. This pays off in terms of enhancing our security in a number of ways.

We have interactions with armed forces and defence establishments in our own region and all over the world. These include military exercises, military-to-military as well as policy discussions, interaction programmes at various levels, and cross-attendance of military training courses. The SAF has access to training facilities in about a dozen countries. At the multilateral level, we conduct land, naval and air exercises.

All these interactions not only help to develop friendship and mutual understanding and confidence, they also offer benefits in terms of the professional development of our servicemen, including our National Servicemen who participate in these exercises.

Training and exercising with advanced militaries, for example, the various services of the US armed forces, allow the SAF to benchmark itself against the best in the world. The fact that advanced armed forces are keen to expand the scope and complexity of their military exercises with the SAF, reflects their high regard for the professionalism of the SAF. Our cooperation with foreign armed forces also allows for collaborations in defence technology, and we have had fruitful collaborations with countries such as the US, France, Sweden and Israel.

Sir, Dr Ong Chit Chung has asked whether MINDEF has enough resources to tackle both conventional military threats and low intensity conflicts or LICs. He has also asked about our efforts to combat terrorism. Dr Ong has zeroed in on the critical issue of security, and that is, the spectrum of threats, and potential threats that face Singapore, has expanded. This is one important reason why we are seeking an increased budget for defence.

Since 11th September 2001, MINDEF and our other security agencies, as well as non-security agencies which provide expertise to deal with the wide range of LIC and terrorist threats, have been working hard to quickly develop our capabilities to deal with such threats. These are fundamentally different in nature from the security challenges that we have had to tackle in the past. Global catastrophic terrorism, in particular, is a complex threat which impacts on all dimensions of our national life. The target is not just our security, but also our economy and the fabric of our society. And the threat is constant. It is sustained. Our response has to be multi-faceted, and it must be coherent and integrated.

In counter-terrorism, the effort has to be a multi-agency one, not only because of the multi-dimensional nature of the threat but also because this allows us to maximise our limited national resources. The National Security Secretariat, which is an inter-agency department located in MINDEF to coordinate this effort, has made significant progress in all three areas of prevention, protection and consequence management.

In the area of prevention, intelligence is critical and we have had good cooperation with our regional countries. One of the most significant results yielded by this cooperation with our neighbours was the arrest of Mas Selamet Kastari, the leader of the Singapore JI group. The JI here has been crippled after the arrest of its members, but the threat of terrorism has not been eradicated and we cannot afford to be complacent. We have to harden our defences so that we do not offer tempting targets. And all Singaporeans will have to remain alert and vigilant.

Sir, let me conclude by saying that we are living in uncertain times. Singapore is more vulnerable to the influence of the external environment than most other countries. We now have to grapple with new and more complex threats even as we have to continue to be prepared for conventional threats. The spectrum of threats has expanded and we must have the defence capabilities to deal with the whole range of threats if we want to ensure Singapore's security. The demands on our security apparatus have grown significantly. We have to grapple with more issues. We have to build up more capabilities. We have to develop more systems. We have to conduct more activities. And we have to do all of these within the limits of our manpower, including our National Service resources. These heavier demands on our security system will continue for some time to come, given that the security environment in our region is unlikely to improve significantly for some time.

Finally, Sir, to reiterate, security is the most basic requirement for our survival and continued success as a nation. The Singapore Armed Forces and our other security agencies must have the hardware and systems, and Singaporeans must have the commitment and resolve to ensure Singapore's security.

Sir, I have dealt with most of the points raised by Members. The other points will be dealt with by my colleagues in the Defence Ministry.

The Chairman: Dr Ong has already gone on a peace mission. Dr Maliki.

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman (Sembawang): Before he goes on to a peace mission in Pedra Branca ---

The Chairman: Just carry on with your speech.

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Sir, the world has seen tremendous amount of unsettling events, some of them are very unnerving. While most of these events happened in other countries, we often feel their ripple effects, especially when some of these happened so close to our homes. In a global village, everyone has a role to play in maintaining peace and order. I am pleased to note that Singapore is an active participant in UN peace-keeping missions. Such missions not only provide our servicemen with invaluable opportunities to gain frontline experience and build up confidence, they also ensure Singapore's presence and commitment to international and regional peace and stability.

Sir, I understand that SAF personnel have been involved in peace-keeping missions for the past 12 years. This is certainly an impressive track record, and I understand that in this period, more than 900 personnel, if not more, have been deployed in various peace missions. The duration of such missions, as I understand it, is, on average, about a year. I would like to raise two concerns that I have in this regard.

First, is on the issue of the mental health of SAF personnel who have gone for such missions. Studies of US military personnel deployed to peace-keeping missions in places such as Somalia and Bosnia found that some of these personnel were at risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (or PTSD), having been exposed to stresses like witnessing the aftermath of death and destruction, observing sufferings and experiencing stress about peace-keeping duties. Sir, my questions are: what are the processes that these personnel were made to go through before and after their peace missions to ensure that their mental health needs are met? Have any of these personnel shown any signs of PTSD, and, if so, what has been done to assist them?

The second concern I have, Sir, is with regard to the welfare of families of personnel deployed in peace-keeping missions. Another study involving Australian military personnel sent to peace-keeping missions highlighted the need for care and consideration to be given to families of personnel or individuals on deployment. Deployment of personnel is a very stressful time for families. If personnel return to difficult family situations, they are potentially at greater risk of developing chronic trauma symptoms. The study also found that good social support is a strong factor in preventing the development of traumatic symptoms. My questions in this regard are: what is being done to support families of personnel sent to peace-keeping missions? How are families assisted in understanding and supporting their members who have gone to these peace-keeping missions to ease transition when they return home? And have such personnel faced family problems upon their return from such missions? If so, what is being done to assist them?

I recognise the value of such peace-keeping missions have on Singapore as a country. I think there is tremendous value for these individuals too. However, if we do not pay attention to the above issues, these benefits may be easily challenged with negative effects and they may end up being more costly to the personnel, their families, and Singapore.

The Chairman: Dr Ong, you can take both cuts together.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Sir, my apologies for the mistake earlier and the incursions, which are unintended, unlike the Malaysians' incursions into our territorial waters at Pedra Branca.

Malaysian vessels continue to intrude into our territorial waters, despite Singapore and Malaysia committing the issue of Pedra Branca for ruling at the International Court of Justice.

I wish to ask the Minister whether our Navy will increase its patrols in our territorial waters at Pedra Branca. What measures can be taken to prevent further intrusions into our territorial waters? What if the Malaysian patrol vessels refused to leave our territorial waters?

Sir, the collision between a commercial ship and our Navy ship, RSS Courageous, off Pedra Branca was most unfortunate and tragic, and we grieved over the loss of four lives. We were told that investigations are still in progress. But much time has passed, and we wonder why there is such a long delay in completing the investigations.

There are still many unanswered questions. For example, how did the accident occur when both crews were aware that the ships were on a collision path? In particular, the crew of RSS Courageous had sighted the commercial ship on its radar and also through its duty watch officer.

A question uppermost in the minds of many is whether the accident reflects and affects the operational readiness of the Navy. Further, what are the lessons that we can draw from this accident, and are these lessons being followed up and internalised within the Navy?

Sir, in my opinion, it is best to complete the investigations speedily. We should conclude and draw the right lessons, and then the Navy could move on.

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Sir, like my colleague before me, I just want to say that some months have passed since the occurrence of the incident involving the collision between a commercial ship and RSS Courageous. We lost four brave daughters in that tragic and unfortunate event. And to this day, one is still missing in the open sea. Our hearts go out to the families.

The questions that I would like to ask were touched on by Dr Ong in his comments earlier. In addition to those questions, I would like to ask whether or not this accident was a result of a systemic error or a human error. And if it was a systemic error, would the Ministry give us an assurance that such an incident will not happen again? I would like to have an indication from the Minister when the Ministry is likely to be in a position to give us a full account of what happened.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (East Coast): Sir, when the collision between the RSS Courageous and the ANL Indonesia took place on the night of 3rd January this year, it immediately sent shock waves of disbelief throughout the country. The immediate response of the Navy in searching for the bodies of those who were missing and in giving much emotional support to the families was the correct thing.

Sir, that passage of seaway is an extremely busy one. Hundreds of ships pass by every day. So we must know what steps can be taken to prevent such an accident and tragedy from happening again. I recall that in January, when this matter was raised in the House, the Minister told us that the Maritime and Port Authority would finish its investigations by the end of January. But until now, we have heard nothing. We were also told that the findings would be made public and that MINDEF would also conduct its own board of inquiry. May I also ask whether MINDEF's findings would be made public? 11.45 am

Sir, I know that investigations of this nature have to be very thorough. But the delay in completing the investigations and presenting their report are not helpful to the image of the Navy and that of our Armed Forces. The delay of this nature would just lead to unnecessary, unfair and wild speculation. And only a full accounting will put this matter to rest and allow the families who lost their loved ones to close this tragic chapter and move on with their lives. Above all, we must be able to assure the many people who dedicate themselves to the security of our nation, as well as their families, that lesson has been learnt and that all steps are being taken to avoid accidents and tragedies of a similar nature.

So my question is: why have the investigations taken so long to complete and when will the report be ready?

The Second Minister for Defence (RAdm Teo Chee Hean): Sir, the United Nations' peace-keeping missions play a critical role in bringing peace and stability to troubled areas. And as a responsible member of the international community, Singapore tries to make a useful contribution to this effort and we will continue to do so within our means.

Since 1989, Singapore has participated in 13 UN missions, with a total of 1,235 SAF personnel who have participated in these UN missions. SAF servicemen are currently serving in UN missions in Timor-Leste and the Ethiopia-Eritrea and Iraq-Kuwait border areas. Our participation in the UN mission in Timor-Leste, or UNMISET, is our largest to date. We have 253 people there currently. Right now, the Singapore contingent comprises 160 peacekeepers, 72 men in the helicopter detachment, several staff officers, and there are also 25 police officers there. A senior SAF officer, Major General Tan Huck Gim, is Force Commander of UNMISET. Besides doing our part as a member of the UN and making a direct contribution to peace and stability in our region, the SAF's participation in UNMISET and other UN peace-keeping missions has also gained us valuable operational experience.

Sir, the SAF prepares its servicemen thoroughly before they are sent on UN missions. They are given rigorous training, which is operational in nature, and we give them briefings on the legal aspects, what rules are in place, and we also give them training in country and cultural familiarisation. This is to help prepare them to handle any situation that they might face. They are also given psychological counselling, both for their mission and for their long period of absence from home. In addition, MINDEF has a comprehensive support system for the families of the servicemen. Liaison officers make regular home visits and assist the families, and the families can also call hotlines when they need assistance or information. We also, of course, appreciate visits and the concern shown by Dr Ong and others who have visited our troops in Timor-Leste.

We do not have any records of servicemen suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. But we do have psychiatrists in the SAF Medical Services and psychologists in our Applied Behavioural Sciences Department who monitor those individual servicemen, not just those on missions, such as these, as well as the morale of our units.

Dr Ong Chit Chung and several others have also asked about Pedra Branca. Sir, our Navy and the Police Coast Guard patrol Singapore's territorial waters off Pedra Branca round the clock. We will continue to do so to safeguard Singapore's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The measures we have in place and the various contingency plans that we have are adequate to deal with violations of our sovereignty in the waters around Pedra Branca by Malaysian state vessels. While Malaysian state vessels have not always complied immediately with our instructions to leave, they do leave eventually.

Malaysia and Singapore have signed a Special Agreement on 6th February to refer the Pedra Branca dispute to the International Court of Justice and we should both allow the legal process to take its course. It is unfortunate that Malaysian naval vessels continue to violate our territorial waters around Pedra Branca, even though the Malaysian government knows full well that this will not advance their case in the International Court of Justice. Such violations could lead to a tense situation on the ground and increase the risk of unintended incidents.

Sir, Dr Ong Chit Chung, Mr Sin Boon Ann and Mr Tan Soo Khoon have asked about the collision between the RSS Courageous and ANL Indonesia. Sir, MINDEF had convened a Board of Inquiry into the collision between RSS Courageous and the merchant vessel, ANL Indonesia. The Board of Inquiry has completed its work and MINDEF has provided a summary of the Board of Inquiry's findings to the Coroner to facilitate the Coroner's Inquiry. MINDEF has also fully cooperated with the Maritime and Port Authority in its investigation into the accident. The MPA's investigation report will be released in due course. I do not expect that it will take very much longer. That will contain a full account of the events leading up to the collision. Let me assure Members of this House that MINDEF, the SAF and the Navy are also as interested as Members here in finding out, getting to the bottom of this collision, learning from the lessons and moving on.

The crew of RSS Courageous has undergone counselling and assessment to prepare them for operational deployment. In addition, RSN has re-examined its safety practices and shipboard safety procedures have been reinforced. The RSN has also re-examined its professional training systems, and steps have been taken to further enhance the training and qualification system for Officers of the Watch. Sir, morale in the RSN was, of course, affected by this accident. But the RSN is a strong family and our people have recovered, learnt from the tragic incident and moved on. They are, after all, fully aware of the onerous and potentially dangerous nature of military duty, and they know that they have a job to do. The men and women of the Navy are fully professional, and the Navy's operational readiness was not affected by this accident.

Sir, the men and women of the SAF dedicate their lives to the service of our nation. The tragic loss of our four servicewomen in the collision of RSS Courageous is a sad reminder of how those who serve in the SAF work under tough and, sometimes, dangerous conditions to protect Singapore's security. The Navy plays a vital role in the defence of Singapore and will continue to do so with full dedication and the highest professional standards.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Sir, the SAF is a small National Service armed force. It relies on the elements of intelligence, mobility and firepower. The SAF has to be a few steps ahead of its rivals, in terms of arms procurement, weapons systems and defence technology. In a conflict, we must use our cutting edge in technology to overrun and overwhelm the enemy. Hence, arms procurement and defence technology are vital to the SAF.

Sir, in this scenario, how does MINDEF ensure that our arms purchase meet our defence needs and requirements? Do we also leverage on our own homegrown defence R&D to achieve superiority in the battlefield?

Sir, we have our submarines, stealth frigates, bionics armoured vehicles and Apache attack helicopters. However, other countries are catching up and are acquiring new and advanced weapons and weapons systems. How do we therefore ensure that our technological headstart or competitive advantage in technology is maintained in the future?

We read that SAF is embarking on a joint development of the F35 joint fighters with the United States and other countries. This is a new initiative and a new trend. What are the benefits for Singapore in embarking on the joint development of such prototype aeroplanes?

Mr Ravindran: Sir, when the Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA) was set up some three years ago, one of the concerns raised in this House is whether it will collaborate with the private sector to ensure that some R&D is undertaken by the private sector together with the involvement of the academia. As one of the biggest R&D organisations, if not the biggest R&D organisation in Singapore, I would like to ask the Minister for Defence as to what extent DSTA has collaborated with the private sector and the academia to ensure that many of these R&D projects, which have military application, can be tapped by DSTA. And, secondly, in particular, I would like to ask as to what extent DSTA has passed on some of the technology that is developed for military application for usage in the civilian sector, and vice-versa. And as to the extent to which it has tapped on some of the application of R&D results that have been achieved in the private sector, how much of it has been taken over for military application by DSTA?

Dr Chong Weng Chiew (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, I am glad to note the ERC's recommendations for the enhancement of our human capital. Towards this end, we should spare no effort in allowing our young human resource as much opportunity as possible to strengthen. Our fresh graduates today face very severe competition in the job market, reportedly the worst ever in the last five years. The percentage of the fresh graduates not able to find a job after graduation has grown by close to 10% year on year.

Sir, I believe that while we open our economy and job market to foreign talents, we need to remove some of the measures that blunt the competitive edge of our young human resource pool. Our young graduates are not facing only competition in the local job market on an uneven playing field, but also worldwide. The size of China and India's populations allows them to produce bright professionals in abundance. They have an edge over our graduates because they join the workforce earlier as they do not have to do national service. Age to age, the graduates in these countries would have some years of working experience versus our own fresh graduates.

In terms of mandatory conscription, we are amongst the minority in the world. I had moved this issue last year and am raising it again this year, as the Minister had responded last year that the Ministry would be relooking into the period of national service.

Sir, the smallness of our population would dictate that our defence philosophy and strategy are not solely dependent on size. Throughout history, there are many examples of military contests when numeric superiority does not dictate the outcome. This is especially so in the present day where threats are from terrorist groups, such as JI and the Al Qaeda. Unlike conventional threats, terrorist groups operate in the dark. It is almost similar to that of guerilla warfare and, hence, keeping large armies is no guarantee of strength or security.

I am thus asking the Minister for Defence to expeditiously, with the timetable, review the length of national service for our young and shorten it appropriately and deliver a compact training period to develop our defence force instead.

Mr Ng Ser Miang (Nominated Member): Sir, National Service is the duty that our sons undertake with pride and honour. It is an essential part of our military defence. Our national sportsmen, on the other hand, contribute to our psychological and social defence. Whenever they won, and when our national flag was raised and Majullah Singapura was played, pride, passion and patriotism surged through us and we cheered for them as one people and one nation regardless of race and religion. With the understanding and accommodation made by the Ministry of Defence, it has been possible for our national sportsmen doing NS to train and compete for our nation without compromising the standard and demands of National Service. 12.00 noon

Sir, I would say that national sportsmen doing NS has a special role to play in addition to doing their military service. Winning for Singapore whilst doing NS not only brings pride and joy to our nation, family and to oneself, it also serves as a morale booster and inspiration to the section, platoon, company, battalion and to all NSmen, and inspire them to want to do their best for Singapore.

So, like Oliver Twist, I am asking for more. I am asking the Ministry to recognise the value of our national sportsmen in NS, and allow them even greater flexibility for them to excel for Singapore.

Dr Warren Lee (Sembawang): Sir, reservists have a duty to the nation during reserve ICT, which they fulfill gladly. However, as they progress in their careers, they also face increasing demands on their time from the families and jobs. I am glad that MINDEF has been moving towards a system whereby experienced reservists who have performed well in their individual units have been allowed to move towards individualised training for upkeep of their military skills, rather than having to take part in large-scale ICT all the time. This is a move in the right direction.

When reservists go into in-camp training, I am also glad to note that the administration of in-camp training has been much improved, and the morale of servicemen is often very high. I had the privilege recently of observing a live-firing exercise in New Zealand. Despite having had to put up with cold and windy conditions in the field, the camaraderie, esprit de corps and morale of the servicemen concerned were very high, as their technical proficiency and standards. This is all very well.

I would also hope that the SAF would do more to improve the administration and in-processing speed of reservists when they come for recall manning, because despite this being more low key, reservists also have to drop everything, get their uniforms and go back to camp. They answer the call of the nation. I think it behooves the organisations also to make sure that they are speedily in-processed and are able to turn out into their fighting units.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Although their numbers are relatively small, women have made their mark as regulars in the SAF. In the last five years, we have at least two female naval officers who commanded ships in the Navy, a woman commanding officer in the artillery, and several women who command RSAF squadrons. Whenever I meet such women officers, I can feel their sense of pride in, first, serving their country and, second, in rising to their positions in a male-dominated field. They take their professions and their cause of protecting the country very seriously.

But they did not make much of their achievements as women because, as far as they are concerned, they are there on their own merits, and they want to be judged by their male counterparts and the country on the basis of their own abilities, leadership qualities and contributions to SAF. They work very hard to prove themselves on this basis. Their attitude is commendable. But I also know that it has been a challenge for the women regulars to overcome some biases and mindsets towards them, especially given this patriarchal society and their male-dominated working environment. They take this in their stride, but we need not make it harder for them.

Sir, fewer than one in 10 SAF regulars are women. But whatever their numbers - as is made clear with the recent tragedy of RSS Courageous which took the lives of four Navy servicewomen - women face the same dangers as men while on professional duty. Hence, they deserve equal recognition and respect as the men in the SAF.

However, if we look at the MINDEF website, we will find a video clip of the Army's recruitment advertisements, one for men and one for women, and the contrast between them cannot be greater. For the clip titled "Woman Officer", it shows a sexy woman strutting in very short shorts in a halter top with an exposed midriff, with a silky tune playing in the background. She gives sultry looks to a man - I think a male officer - and as she walks away, these words appear: "A whole world of possibilities - Women in the Army". I am not sure what it meant but, watching the clip, one of the possibilities that came readily to mind was of a high-class karaoke hostess. And, sometimes, looking at it, it looks more like an advertisement to recruit men than to recruit women. But when we contrast this with the clip for men, it is studded with purposeful images of men scanning maps, looking vigilant, serious, courageous, protecting Singapore, and the word "Leadership" appeared, and the clip ends with the words "Army 21, the decisive force".

Sir, I think the clip for women regulars, which I would say is quite sexist, demeans their serious contribution to the SAF in securing the interest of Singapore. The image portrayed also will not help them in their aspiration to compete with men as equals in the SAF on the basis of their abilities. I would urge the Ministry to be more discerning in its recruitment advertisements.

I also scanned the MINDEF recruitment advertisements in the Sunday Times of 9th March 2003, and I was very happy to see the range of scholarships on offer. But I find it curious that the SAF Overseas Scholarship, the most prestigious of the lot, is open only to men, unlike the SAF Merit Scholarship, which is open to both sexes. Can I ask the Minister what is the reason for this? It cannot be physical fitness because, for both, the criteria would be that they must qualify and excel in the Officer Cadet School and, for both scholarships, they must have a strong interest in a military career. But the SAF Overseas Scholarship is not open for women.

The Chairman: Ms Ng, you have got to end your speech soon.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: As we know, the SAF Overseas Scholarship scheme has produced a number of outstanding leaders, some of whom sit here in the Front bench. The SAF Overseas Scholarship route can also be an important route for women to join the Front bench, and that route is presently closed. I would urge the Minister to review this.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng): Sir, Dr Ong Chit Chung asked about MINDEF arms procurement and defence technology, and Mr Ravindran has enquired about DSTA and whether it is cooperating with other agencies like the universities and the private sector.

Sir, MINDEF ensures that the SAF has the best possible weapons and equipment to carry out its missions effectively. We take a long-term view and make sustainable investments of resources to build up our capabilities to give the SAF the decisive edge. Plans are reviewed regularly to meet the evolving security challenges. When we are able to, MINDEF buys equipment off-the-shelf, to exploit the efficiencies of the marketplace. Sometimes, we upgrade existing equipment, if that is the most cost-effective way to give us the capability that we need.

One example is the upgrade of our F5 fighter aircraft. The programme has given the RSAF enhanced air-to-air capability at a fraction of the cost of a comparable new aircraft. We also conduct our own technology development in areas where we have special requirements, and we do our development for systems and technologies that we cannot buy from the market, for instance, in fields, such as electronic warfare, cyber security, chemical and biological defence.

Our investments in defence technologies have yielded significant technological capability for MINDEF, SAF, Defence Science and Technology Agency, DSO National Laboratory, and ST Engineering. DSTA has strong systems engineering capability. DSO National Laboratory undertakes secret edge applied defence research, and ST Engineering has developed strong systems integration and engineering capabilities, and they have designed and developed such advanced weapons systems as the Bionix Infantry Fighting Vehicle, and the Endurance-class Landing Ship Tank. All these taken together constitute a significant and sustainable advantage in defence technology for our armed forces.

MINDEF, naturally, has also leveraged on the capabilities of other organisations in Singapore. We routinely tap the expertise in Temasek laboratories, the research institutes, and the talents in NUS, NTU and the polytechnics for less sensitive work. Local companies and start-ups that can offer innovative solutions for the SAF operations also receive MINDEF funding.

Dr Ong asked about Singapore's participation in the JSF programme. Our participation in this programme as a security cooperation participant gives Singapore early access to operational and technical information related to the JSF. The programme aims to develop an advanced multi-role new generation stealth fighter. The JSF, or F35 as it is known, will have enhanced combat survivability, precision engagement and lower cost of maintenance. Singapore is the first Asian country to join the JSF programme.

Mr Ravindran also asked about dual-use technology and, where applicable, would MINDEF and its agencies explore such dual-use technology, and the answer is yes. Dual-use technology would help reduce the overall cost of defence procurement, and ST Engineering routinely does that.

Dr Chong Weng Chiew described the poor job market which Singapore fresh graduates are facing, and the fact that our young male citizens have had to do National Service compared to their counterparts in some other countries, and he asked if the length for full-time National Servicemen can be reduced.

Sir, National Service plays a vital role in safeguarding the security and sovereignty of Singapore, with National Servicemen forming the backbone of the SAF. It is therefore important that National Servicemen are well trained, proficient and operationally ready. The length of full-time National Service is determined by the time required to train our National Servicemen to the required level of military proficiency, especially for military commanders. They are trained not only to handle their own equipment, but also to be able to fight effectively as an integrated force. Our National Servicemen have to operate at the battalion, brigade and up to the division levels. The use of technology and sophisticated weapons systems has given the SAF a decisive capability edge. But soldiers still require a significant period of training and familiarisation to operate these advanced weapons systems proficiently.

MINDEF has carefully reviewed the length of full-time NS and decided that it would be prudent to maintain the current NS duration. The regional security climate remains volatile and uncertain, as many Members of the House have pointed out. We need to maintain our vigilance and ability to respond effectively to a wide range of security threats. Reducing the length of NS would impact on the ability of our units to fulfill their missions, and we cannot compromise the operational readiness and effectiveness of the SAF.

Having said that, MINDEF would not want Singaporeans to spend more time than necessary for NS duties. For this reason, enlistees who have the required level of physical fitness do not have to undergo the physical training phase before Basic Military Training. Those who achieve at least a Silver Standard in the National Physical Fitness Award (NAPFA) test therefore enjoy a 2-month reduction in full-time NS.

MINDEF recognises the sacrifices that NSmen have made in order to protect Singapore. Therefore, the Government has done various things to recognise such contributions by our NSmen, and these included a higher allocation for New Singapore Shares, Economic Restructuring Shares, tax reliefs, as well as the many SAFRA clubs that are provided for the benefit of NSmen and their families.

The support by Members in this House, as Dr Warren Lee has pointed out, the fact that ICT has improved, morale and standards are high. Such recognition that Members of the House give to our National Servicemen is a laudable one. 12.15 pm

Mr Ng Ser Miang asked about sportsmen in National Service. National Service is the responsibility of all able-bodied male Singaporeans, including athletes, to safeguard our nation and to protect our families. Nevertheless, MINDEF recognises that enlistment for National Service can cause some disruptions to an athlete's sports training programmes. Hence, efforts are taken to minimise the impact of National Service on the sports training of our top athletes and, at the same time, to ensure that they are adequately trained for the defence of the nation. That is the primary purpose of National Service.

MINDEF allows a small number of the top national sportsmen to train in their respective sports, while undergoing their full-time National Service. The sportsmen must first complete their Basic Military Training, Military Leadership or Vocational Training. Thereafter, they would be deployed to serve in military units and they are eligible to be granted time-off to undergo sports training and competitions. Full-time National Servicemen representing Singapore in major international or regional competitions may be granted unrecorded leave or even disruption from National Service to participate in these events.

The question that always arises is how much further we can do and how much more flexible MINDEF can be. We have also, in some instances, allowed officials, who have accompanied such sportsmen, time-off to take on such duties. However, it is always debatable as to the level of proficiency and competency of a particular sportsman. Many claim to be a lot more able than they actually are. Bearing in mind that the main purpose of NS is the defence of the nation and military training, MINDEF has to be selective as to who we allow such unrecorded leave.

Dr Warren Lee commented on our mobilisation exercises and the fact that many of our NSmen have full-time careers to attend to and whether or not MINDEF can be more efficient in the In-and-Out processing of such NSmen when they come back for ICT or mobilisation exercise.

MINDEF recognises that a large part of such inefficiency today lies in manual processing of In-and-Out processing. MINDEF has been leveraging on IT to improve NS administration in general. MIW.com, an Internet website is one such initiative. It enables NSmen to carry out a variety of transactions with MINDEF electronically, such as make-up pay claims, overseas notification and IPPT booking. Electronic transactions will be extended to as many aspects of National Service administration as possible. In respect of call-up administration, MINDEF has been conducting a trial to administer in/out processing electronically. This will reduce processing time by up to 50%. Once it is proven, the electronic in/out processing system would be extended to all call-ups and mobilisation exercises.

Ms Irene Ng has commented about service women in the SAF. Indeed, service women in the SAF have made their mark. They have done well, and continue to do well. MINDEF provides opportunities to both male and female military personnel in recruitment, training, advancement and, wherever possible, deployment. Women compete with men for scholarships, academic awards and career advancement. Women have a role in the SAF. MINDEF recognises the value that they bring to the SAF and, over the last five years, we have between 2-6 service women holding appointments as Commanding Officers of the SAF units at any point in time. Women contribute to increasing the operational readiness of the SAF. The SAF has often depicted its service women in its advertisements, posters and pamphlets. These publicity materials raise the overall profile of women in the service and help the SAF to attract women to join the organisation.

Ms Ng pointed out to a certain advertisement on the army website and observed that it may be sexist in nature. We will take a look at the website again and if it is so, we would make the necessary corrections. The SAF will continue to give its service women due recognition and to educate the public on the career opportunities and the significant role that women play in the SAF.

Dr Warren Lee: Sir, I agree with my parliamentary colleagues that everybody's contribution matters in the total defence of a nation, whether male or female, young or old, and whatever roles we might play. In a conflict that we are increasingly going to be seeing in the world of tomorrow, there may be no frontline as such. With weapons of mass destruction, low level intensity, conflicts with terrorist acts, the role of homeland defence takes on a new importance. The lack of a front in the new types of warfare means that Singapore's approach of having total defence is absolutely correct.

I would call upon our Government to review how we can improve the roles of the Civil Defence Executive Committees and their volunteers in our heartlands to see how they can be better trained and how their roles can be better integrated with the roles of our active civil defence forces, as well as the SAF forces charged with the protection of our homeland. I wonder whether there are also plans for a larger level and a larger scale exercises in the same way that the SAF built itself up from small, medium and, now, large unit exercises.

Mr Heng Chee How (Jalan Besar): Sir, as I was thinking through what to say on this cut on total defence, I had written down that, given the realities that Singapore and Singaporeans have to confront and grapple with today, the message and importance of total defence stands out. And this is in contrast to the earlier years of total defence where nobody would quarrel with the need or comprehensiveness or far-sightedness of the approach but perhaps neither would many be taking it very seriously because the threat scenarios then were less acute.

Sir, having listened to some of the views expressed by my parliamentary colleagues on the subject of defence and the need for defence, or even the possibility of scaling back defence in this situation, I think I have taken too much for granted. What I thought was self-evident, that we have to have strong defence, is not so self-evident after all. I think we have to be careful about this.

We are Lion City. And as any lion or lioness that has to defend the interest of the pride would know, we have got to be fast, we have got to be good in order to defend our territory because the wildebeest, the gazelle, the buffaloes would not just walk into your mouth. Neither would other prides just leave your territory to you. And many a weak lion would lose its lunch to hyenas and sometimes, if you are sick, you end up as the hyena's lunch. That is a fact of life. Even if some of us find the imagery of a lion too aggressive, or too carnivorous, and hope that we can have something more vegetarian, I would say that the defence of Singapore must at least be that of a rhinoceros. We must never, never let it become that of a sloth, or worse still, a dodo.

I therefore think that it is time that we stepped up total defence education and the practice of total defence because the circumstances are now upon us and we have to take things seriously. Not only the Defence Ministry, not only the Home Affairs Ministry, not only the Government, but our people, all of us. This is a window of opportunity because these circumstances do cause more people to take this message seriously. To do this, I urge MINDEF to engage, not only the usual channels like advertisements and exhibitions, but to engage the resources of the CDCs, the IRCCs, the grassroots organisations, the unions - all channels. Because these channels tap into different networks and they have different credibility with different segments of the population. Tap on this, think about how we can operationalise total defence better given this window of opportunity.

I would also like MINDEF to think about how to tap on all the different languages - all the four language mediums - in order to do this, and not just place too heavy a weightage, for example, on English. Tap too on the Chinese, Malay, as well as the Tamil medium.

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Sir, the significance and reality of security threats to Singapore has been underscored in this House for some time now.

Sir, the concept of total defence has also been introduced to Singapore for many years now. Singaporeans are very familiar with the five arms of total defence - psychological, social, economic, civil and military defence.

Sir, the National Education curriculum has been introduced to our schools to highlight to the school children significant events in our history with the objective of making them appreciate what we have today and not take our peace for granted. This would work well as school children are a captive audience. But, Sir, total defence, as the name would suggest, requires not only a comprehensive approach that addresses all aspects of defence. It also should be comprehensive in its reach-out to the different groups of Singaporeans. Everyone has a part to play in protecting and defending Singapore.

Sir, while we can relatively conclude that Singaporeans are aware of the threats facing us, I wonder whether they are aware of what can be done should the threat become a reality. Are Singaporeans ready for the first bomb to go off? What about the threats of biological weapons, anthrax? Do they know what to do? Also, one quarter of our residents of the population are foreigners. In times of emergencies, they are equally concerned for their safety and protection. Would total defence strategies and programmes also consider reaching out to these foreign friends who work and reside here?

My questions to the Minister are: with the threat of security being so complex, how do MINDEF and its partners ensure that the people understand what they have to do in the event of an attack or emergency? Given the diversity of the different target groups - professionals, elderly, youths, foreign workers, etc - how will MINDEF ensure that these groups are effectively and efficiently reached out to? Given the threat from religious extremists lurking at the doorsteps and threatening our social cohesion, does the National Education Office intend to work with the IRCCs in reaching out to Singaporeans? My suggestion is it should.

Sir, we have often heard civil defence exercises being conducted to ensure that Singaporeans are prepared during emergencies. My question is: how successful are such exercises? Apart from the numbers present, what would be the other indicators that MINDEF uses in ascertaining the effectiveness of such exercises and programmes? What, in MINDEF's assessment, are the groups that need the most attention, ie, the groups that often do not participate in such exercises? What are the plans that would be adopted in reaching out to such groups?

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence (Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee): Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Defence, I would like to thank the three Members of Parliament, Dr Warren Lee, Mr Heng Chee How and Dr Maliki, for raising the important questions on total defence.

Sir, the relevance and importance of total defence has become more evident, given the broad spectrum of challenges facing Singapore today. Although the relevance of military and civil defence has always been more readily grasped and appreciated, the importance of the other three elements of total defence, namely, in the economic, social and psychological defence has not always been that clear.

For many Singaporeans, social and psychological defence took on added significance after the events of September 11th and the uncovering of the JI network in Singapore. It showed that our security and stability and our strength as a nation also depends on religious and racial harmony, the points reiterated by all three Members of Parliament, the bonding among our people and Singapore's commitment and loyalty to the nation.

The current economic difficulties also remind all of us of the important contribution of a strong economy will make towards the overall strength of our nation and importance of economic defence. Sir, the central notion in the concept of total defence is rightly pointed out by Dr Maliki that every Singaporean has a contribution to our nation's defence. Over the past year or so, many Singaporeans would have realised that we have to pull together and each do our part, because everyone's contribution matters.

Sir, this is particularly relevant in the context of the unique nature of the threat of global catastrophic terrorism. Terrorists may target our homeland and this threat could come at any time from anywhere. Our people must be alert and vigilant, and help to be the eyes and ears of the community in looking out for suspicious activities. Singaporeans can also do more to prepare ourselves so that they are equipped to respond to emergencies. We have a responsibility to ourselves, to our families, to our community and to our nation.

Sir, MINDEF's Central National Education Office has been working closely with all agencies, including the Ministry of Education, MITA, the Civil Service College, the People's Association and the CDC to bring National Education programmes to different segments of our society. Dr Maliki urged that more could be done to cement the link between the total defence agencies and the CDCs. This has been done and, of course, more can be done.

Sir, the key objectives are to develop national cohesion, the instinct for survival and confidence in our future. This is about building passion, pride and commitment among Singaporeans. So, National Education is a long-term process.

Dr Maliki has asked about the indicators of the success of our National Education efforts. Sir, this is difficult to measure because it concerns the "heartware". But there are some proxy indicators from the survey results which prove encouraging. For instance, the MOE conducted a survey amongst students, and from the year 1997 to 2001, there had been a steady improvement in such indicators, as the sense of belonging, confidence in our future and tolerance for racial and religious harmony.

Singaporeans also generally acknowledge the importance of National Education and its objectives. A survey by the Central National Education Office revealed that 77% thought so. Different agencies are actively promoting the concept of total defence. Their routine publications like this booklet on total defence which I can pass on to the Members of Parliament. Occasionally, key Ministers in the Cabinet make milestone speeches on total defence. Last year, at the Temasek seminar, the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister, Dr Tony Tan, made his speech on total defence making it relevant, a speech which is worth reading, and I will circulate it to the three Members of Parliament.

Dr Maliki also asked how we could involve the 1 million non-Singaporeans living in Singapore. The media has relayed the importance of total defence to different segments of the population, including the non-Singaporeans living among us, and they are also aware of total defence. In addition, we also invite them to participate in some of the activities. Every year, there is a Total Defence Day which is held on 15th February, and they are invited to take part in this event. We also have civil defence exercises. The exercises are open to all residents living within the community. So if you live within certain blocks of HDB flats, everybody there is invited to join in the exercise, whether you are a Singaporean, PR and even non-PR.

Once again, thank you for raising the important topic of total defence.

The Chairman: Dr Ong, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Sir, I want to thank the DPM, Ministers and Senior Parliamentary Secretary for their good and full answers.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $7,728,000,000 for Head J ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $524,000,000 for Head J ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head P -

The Chairman: Head P - Ministry of Home Affairs. Item No. 1, 180 minutes. Prof. Chin Tet Yung.

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

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

Sir, listening to the hon. Members just now speaking on total defence and having listened to the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister, Dr Tony Tan, saying earlier that we cannot underestimate the threat of terrorism, it strikes me that when we deal with the problems of home front security, it involves more than just one Ministry but several. In terms of terrorism and home front security, this House had debated this issue very exhaustively on the White Paper just two months ago, and yet when we speak to our people when we meet them in block visits or other functions, we are surprised and, in a way, disappointed that the message of home front security has not really sunk in.

It is not surprising in a way because many Singaporeans are now juggling with bread-and-butter issues, with the poor economic situation and unemployment, and they are more worried about their livelihood, and not about other issues, but I think it is very important to emphasise that home front security should be one of the priorities in every citizen's list of priorities.

What sort of people have we met? What sort of attitudes do we encounter when we talk to them about terrorism and home front security? There is a range of attitudes. Some say that it is not their business. They leave it to the security forces - the tidak apa attitude or the bo chap attitude. Some say they are concerned but they do not know very much about it. These are the uninformed people. Much fewer say that they are interested. They have been trying to learn more about it, but they actually do not know what to do. They have received some booklets from the Home Affairs Ministry telling them what to do in emergencies but, really, they have no time to read. And, in any event, sometimes they do not understand the language which is, at the moment, in English.

So, we do have a big problem in hand. Singaporeans have, very rightly, thought that they are living in a very peaceful and stable country, and our security forces must take the credit for it. But we are suffering the fruits of our own success, because many have decided to leave it to the security forces to deal with homeland security.

Given this scenario, I regret to say that I have to raise once more with the Minister how to bring the reality of the terrorist threat home to the people. What has the Ministry got to do to prepare and educate the people to be more aware and vigilant about terrorism? Given the current situation where people are more worried about jobs than security, what should we do in order to be pro-active in creating some awareness of the problems faced by countering terrorism? In particular, I would like to ask the Minister whether there could be some activity-based programmes in school and grassroots levels to involve the public, not just to inform them about the security threat but to involve them in basic skills on what to do in emergency situations - situations which were indicated earlier by some Members of this House concerning biological or bio-hazard attacks and so on, what should the people be doing. Should we have more roadshows? Should we have more campaigns to alert the people on this?

The Chairman: Prof. Chin, could you wind up your speech, please?

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, to instill greater awareness at the national level, can the Ministry organise national vigilance campaigns to allow Singapore to have a sense of involvement and responsibility in home front security?

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Hong Kah): (In Mandarin): Sir, the terrorists' activities on September 11 and the Bali bombing shocked the world and caused a lot of damage to our people. The JI conspiracy in Singapore has also given us some very disturbing thoughts. I think we should continue to enhance our security awareness. Here, I would like to raise three points.

First, Changi Airport. Our Changi Airport is a transport hub for Asia. Millions of local travellers as well as tourists pass through the airport each year. Recently, I travelled overseas and I can feel that the security check at our airport is very stringent. The only thing is that the time between the arrival of our luggage and until it is checked by the security personnel could provide an opportunity for the terrorists to do something if they so desire. Can something be done about it? Can we just check the luggage the moment it is brought into the airport? Can we also step up patrol within the terminal buildings, so that any unattended luggage could be removed for security sake?

Secondly, MRT stations. The MRT has become the most favoured mode of transportation for our people, young and old. Can there be patrols in the MRT stations, particularly those in the busy central business district? We could even engage private security companies to step up patrol in the MRT stations.

My third point is on cruises. Many of our people are now going on cruises, and every cruise ship carries thousands of passengers on each trip. Should we also step up our security measures on the cruises? Otherwise, if anything is to happen, it will bring heavy casualties to our people.

Mr Wee Siew Kim (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, homeland security requires multi-agency cooperation. The US may have swung to one extreme with a whole behemoth in the form of Department of Homeland Security. I am not asking for this, as we have to adapt what we have today in Singapore to suit our own local requirements. As a nation, we have always been better organised, allowing us to pull ahead with limited resources. The formation of the ICA is encouraging. The timely disruption of the JI networks offers much reassurance that our systems are working. However, now that the internal and external threats have changed, what had worked for us previously needs to be re-examined. There are lots of capabilities, both in expertise and technologies, residing in many agencies, like the MPA, LTA, MINDEF and the Police Force, etc. Let us focus on the integration of these capabilities and expertise, so as to effectively combat the new threats. I would like to know whether adequate resources have been deployed to face the new threats and that adequate attention has been given to inter-agency cooperation and coordination, especially the key trade-offs between the economic and the security agencies. 12.45 pm

Mdm Ho Geok Choo (West Coast): Sir, in the last two years since September 11, I must compliment MHA for its very comprehensive organisation and planning of the security infrastructure in Singapore. The recent educational programmes on how Singaporeans should manage in the event of a crisis as well as visits to the bomb shelters and exhibits of our security capabilities are very encouraging. Nonetheless, we know that terrorist attacks can come in many forms. The terrorists can be both ingenious in their methods and persistent in their objectives. The acquisition of weapons of mass destruction is regarded as an act of piety by the terrorists, and they could very well already have chemical and biological capabilities. It is noted that most of the detection systems are detection for weapons and explosives. Could the Minister tell us if there are sufficient measures to detect and neutralise chemical and biological agents that could be smuggled by the terrorists into the country?

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Encik Yatiman Yusof): Sir, Singapore is a small country with 4 million people living in an area of 682 square kilometres. It is certainly one of the most densely populated places in the world. In addition, of about 3 million of our people, there are about 1 million foreigners of different social, economic and political backgrounds who are in the same living space with us. The compact living is already a great challenge to those maintaining our homeland security. The September 11th 2001 and October 12th 2002 tragedies were clear warnings to the world - that there is no place in the world that is safe from possible terrorist attack. This has led the security authorities all over the world to review their security policies and strategies. For Singapore, the arrests of Jemaah Islamiyah members are clear indications that terrorist threat to our homeland security is a serious and real issue.

Apart from this, there are also the possible implications arising from an attack on Iraq. In addition, there is also a common phenomenon about possible increase of criminal activities following the economic slowdown. Figures available have shown that there has been an increase in property-related offences. The number of first-time offenders arrested too has increased.

In view of all this background, I would like to ask the Minister whether he could update the House on the latest measures taken to ensure homeland security of Singapore. Realising that there is a limit to what the Police could do, the programme known as the Community Security and Safety Programme was launched to encourage the community's involvement in ensuring the safety and security of our neighbourhood. I would like to ask the Minister what else we can do to make sure that this programme can be more effective.

Mr A Nithiah Nandan (Nominated Member): Sir, the threat of terrorism remains, and this may be further heightened with the possibility of war in Iraq. Has enough been done for our homeland security, especially in the area of engaging Singaporeans from all walks of life in taking ownership of the security of our country?

I raise this question as a result of my experience as a union leader. Recently, workers in Jurong Island and other important installations elsewhere in Singapore were asked to fill up questionnaire forms, indicating their family background and other very personal data, for the purpose of security as required by the authorities. I represent some of these workers. The workers were reluctant to provide some of the information. They were reluctant because of a lack of awareness of the seriousness of the issue at stake. The union understood the importance of the requirement and met the workers to explain the issue, and eventually everyone came forward to provide the information willingly.

Homeland security cannot be just left to the Government. Every Singaporean has a role to play. I sense a certain degree of apathy amongst many Singaporeans, and this was also pointed out by Prof. Chin earlier. This is the reality on the ground. Sir, this brings me to ask the Minister the following questions:

First, what are the steps taken by the Ministry to educate Singaporeans on dealing with terrorist threats, including what to do if an incident occurs?

Second, does the Ministry plan to involve the public on a greater level in dealing with the threats at places of work and public places, such as through community and work place watch activities?

Third, can the Minister update the House on the various steps taken to eradicate or minimise any terrorist acts, including the progress and cooperation levels from regional countries and intelligence agencies?

Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani (Hong Kah): Sir, recently the Government announced the formation of the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA). It is one of the measures taken in response to the threat of international terrorism. Its main aim is to enhance the security of our borders. Border security reorganisation is also being pursued in other countries, notably in the United States. There, the inspection and security functions of three departments (Justice, Treasury and Agriculture) are reorganised into two bureaus - one bureau to deal with border protection; the other to deal with immigration and customs enforcement. Here, the immigration and customs functions at our borders are being amalgamated under the authority of the ICA. Several issues arise here.

Firstly, what would this move entail? Would customs officers now also have to cover immigration security and vice versa? While multi-tasking may be good, would not specialisation and focus be more important in security matters?

Secondly, would this transformation process adversely affect the efficiency and morale of our immigration and customs officers, at least in the short term? And how are these issues being handled?

Thirdly, how would the formation of the ICA affect the tens of thousands of people who cross our borders every day? While enhancing security is vital, would there be greater inconvenience? We do have to bear in mind that Singapore's openness is key to our survival and growth, and therefore it is imperative that we ensure smooth legitimate traffic flow across our borders.

Lastly, perhaps, most importantly, how would the establishment of the ICA actually enhance our borders' security? I request the Minister to give details.

Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair: Sir, the Internal Security Department was established in February 1966. Its predecessors were the Ministry of Interior Defence in 1965, after becoming independent from Malaysia; the Special Branch in 1948; and after World War I in 1919, the British colonial government in Singapore called it the Special Branch. That was how the Internal Security Department transformed.

ISD has over the years become more sophisticated and professional. They have ensured safety for our nation through information gathering and detention of undesirable persons. However, Sir, Singaporeans know very little about the ISD, and Singaporeans, in fact, fear the ISD. Rightly or wrongly, intellectuals and some politicians would be fearful of them if they are seen or perceived to be anti-government or have views that are controversial. ISD should, like the CPIB, as I have suggested, give annual reports to Parliament so that there is more transparency in what they are doing.

In terms of reporting lines, I believe the ISD is part of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Does the ISD report to the Minister for Home Affairs and any other persons? Does it report to any Ministry or Minister? Who gets information about ISD, besides the Ministry of Home Affairs? What is the level of cooperation between the ISD and equivalent agencies in ASEAN countries, especially Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines? Do we cooperate fully with the Special Branch of the ISD in Malaysia? Do we have full cooperation between our ISD and international agencies of an equivalent nature? What is the budget of ISD and how transparent are we with regard to this matter? How much is really spent and on what? Can the Minister give some sort of a breakdown on the activities and the amounts spent on each sector? Again, on the efficacy of the ISD, what is the yardstick to measure the efficacy of the ISD, since all other Ministries are being questioned? Perhaps the ISD could reveal some of the information.

On the issue of espionage, Sir, how many Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans have been detained under the Internal Security Act in the years 2000, 2001, 2002 and currently, and for what reasons? And how many of them are non-Singaporeans - Malaysians, Indonesians and from other ASEAN countries?

11th September 2001 was, Sir, a sad and tragic day for the USA and the world at large. Singapore faces its own problems. Fifteen persons were detained in December 2001 - and it was reported - for their participation in terrorist-related activities. Thirteen of them, we are told, are cell members of the clandestine organisation - Jemaah Islamiyah (JI). Unfortunately, this has raised the problem of Muslims somehow being connected to this group, rightly or wrongly.

I would like to ask, Sir, based on ISD's collection of information, what is the feel on the ground amongst Muslims and non-Muslims in Singapore? Are they concerned and disillusioned by all this? Do Muslims feel that they are being discriminated against by the Government and/or other citizens?

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Sir, Singapore is facing its greatest security challenge since the communist threat in the 1950s and 1960s. If there is a war in Iraq, then this will add another dimension to Singapore's security environment.

As I had said previously in this House, during the debate on the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) White Paper in January, the Government has done and will continue to do whatever it can to secure our borders, to step up security at our land, air and sea checkpoints, to strengthen the security of likely targets, to control the spread of extremist ideology and promote social cohesion. So far, we have been successful, but we cannot let our guard down, because we remain a target.

From intelligence sources, we are aware that the Jemaah Islamiyah planning by Hambali for the Bali bombings started as early as February 2002. In fact, two bombing attacks were planned. One was for an attack against Western interests in Indonesia, which the Jemaah Islamiyah later narrowed down to Bali. The other attack was against Singapore. However, by mid-2002, the senior JI operative assigned to stage the attack on Singapore reported to Hambali that he could not get the job done in Singapore. The target hardening measures that we had taken and the disruption of the local JI network made it difficult for him and he reported that he could not find local helpers or "kaki tangan" to assist him. He then left to join the other JI operatives in Indonesia and went on to stage the Bali attack which happened on 12th October last year. We are lucky this time.

1.00 pm

We have succeeded this time in pre-empting an attack against us. But no one can guarantee that a terrorist attack will not happen here. Our approach must be to make it extremely difficult to carry out their evil acts while, at the same time, be prepared and ready to deal with the repercussions if such an attack does happen.

Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House of several new initiatives which we introduced recently, or which would be launched soon. We firmly believe that it is better to deny terrorists the opportunity to carry out their operations than to mitigate the consequences of their actions. In this respect, we have been cooperating with our regional and international counterparts, with good results. And the efforts of the ISD, which Mr Chandra Mohan referred to, have played a great role in securing this cooperation. Aviation security will also be enhanced through new initiatives, such as the formation of the Air Marshall Unit. The Police Coast Guard will upgrade the surveillance capabilities and acquire newer and better patrol boats to strengthen our maritime security.

Mr Ang Mong Seng may be happy to know that post-September 11, we have enhanced the checks on arriving persons and their belongings at our land and sea checkpoints to 100%. All pieces of luggage through the Airport are also checked. So Mr Ang and other travellers need not worry that, if they go to Changi Airport, luggage would be compromised. The only exceptions are the checks on cars and goods vehicles at Woodlands Checkpoint and the checks on motorcycles at Tuas and Woodlands Checkpoints.

Sir, with the escalation of threats in the Middle East, we will be enhancing our checks further to 100% even at Woodlands Checkpoint for all cars and motorcyclists during the peak hours. This means that every car and motorcycle entering Singapore at Woodlands Checkpoint would have their boot and utility box opened up for inspection. It would also mean that all cargoes arriving on lorries and container trucks will be subjected to a certain degree of checks. This would take effect today. There may be some inconveniences during the peak hours and traffic jams will build up. But it is a balance we have to make, and we need to make, for the sake of our security and a small price to pay for the inconvenience.

To strengthen our border security, we have formed a new agency, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, which merges the border control functions of the Singapore Immigration and Registration and the Customs and Excise Department into one single entity. This will be formed in two weeks' time on 1st April. Mr Ahmad Khalis asked what would be the implications of the formation of ICA on border control operations to the Ministry, the public and the staff. Firstly, ICA will provide an integrated command over all aspects of our checkpoints operations. This would enable all the agencies operating at the checkpoints to share critical intelligence in a timely manner and work closely to coordinate the enforcement actions. Over the medium term, a study to re-engineer operations at the checkpoints to further streamline the functions and tighten coordination between the various agencies will be carried out.

From 1st April, in the short term, there is no change to what the officers do. But a study would be embarked to see how we can streamline and make it more seamless and, at the same time, better deploy the officers. So there will be multi-tasking. Officers will be trained to do the respective tasks. In addition to that, they may also be reassigned from time to time. All this will be transparent to the public. In other words, as far as the public is concerned, they will not be affected by any of the changes. There will be no degradation in the level of service provided to the public on 1st April when ICA is formed formally. Inconvenience to travellers at land checkpoints is not, and will not be, due to the reorganisation. It is due to the stepped-up security measures that I have just mentioned.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo expressed concern about the detection, utilisation and smuggling of biological and chemical agents, and whether we are equipped to deal with this threat. The threat of terrorists using non-conventional means, such as chemical and biological agents, is a very real one. The recent uncovering of a plot to carry out a ricin attack in the United Kingdom is just one example. Yet, many of the chemicals and precursors necessary to produce bombs as well as the chemicals and biological agents have legitimate, commercial and medical uses. In order to deny terrorists access to dual-use materials which can also form the ingredients for bombs and other non-conventional weapons, my Ministry will be coordinating a national system to control the import, storage, transport and use of such materials. Given the diverse and wide range of such chemicals, the full measures will take a while to implement.

In addition, to reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks using vehicles transporting hazardous materials, all drivers driving such vehicles that transport such materials into and within Singapore will be required to obtain a Hazardous Material (Hazmat) Transportation Driver's licence with effect from 1st April this year. This will enable us to better control and monitor such vehicles.

Over the years, since the sarin attack in Tokyo in 1995, we have built up the capability to respond to biological and chemical threats and are continually improving upon it. The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) is trained and equipped to carry out detection, mitigation and decontamination of these. We have seen some of these being exercised from time to time in the public. Together with other relevant agencies, we have plans to conduct chemical and biological response operations and equip ourselves to deal with these. These plans are reviewed and exercised from time to time.

Mr Wee Siew Kim has commented that more needs to be done to leverage on technology to enhance our security and to form inter-agency cooperation groups. We have and will continue to do so. There are several inter-agency groups focusing on different issues. The Home Team has employed various biometrics, explosive detection, gamma ray, X-ray and other techniques to further augment existing security measures. Radiographic scanners and biometric systems, for example, are already in use at some of our entry points and will be used for the Hazmat Transportation Drivers' Permit scheme when it is launched. We have also begun pilot trials for two days at Parliament for an under carriage surveillance system. Some of you coming to Parliament during the first two days will notice that there is something on the ground. That is the under vehicle surveillance system which we are testing out. This system is specially designed to examine the undercarriages of vehicles with greater accuracy than conventional techniques like using hands to manipulate a mirror. Home Team departments are constantly on the lookout for new and emerging technologies that will help enhance our security.

Prof. Chin Tet Yung and Mr Nithiah Nandan have asked about efforts to raise the community's awareness and involvement in the homefront security issues. I fully agree that there is a need to educate our people to prime them to take practical steps in exercising vigilance to prepare themselves. For those who are unconcerned about such a threat, or totally unaware that this is a serious threat, I think they will be a liability to themselves. They will then not be able to protect themselves should they see something suspicious. How can we bring the message clearly to the people? We can have public education programme which we will do, and I will elaborate afterwards, but the only way to heighten security awareness and put people to the shock is to have a bomb exploding in Singapore. I do not think anybody wants that to happen, before they wake up to such a threat.

Sir, in raising public awareness, we have launched the National Security Awareness programme on Total Defence Day on 15th February. This programme aims to educate and raise the awareness of the public on counter-terrorism issues. The Singapore Civil Defence Force recently distributed an emergency handbook, not just in one language, but also in other languages as well, except that the first issue on English came out earlier. The Chinese and the other version are now available. The handbook tells the public what to do during emergency situations and a million copies of this have been given to a million households. The Police has also launched a pamphlet outlining the measures that residents, as well as the managements of buildings, can take to help the Police prevent terrorism, and what they should do in the event of a security threat. I believe that the MRT operators will also look into the suggestion by Mr Ang about hiring guards, etc, and tighten up the security at our MRT stations. But the Police and the MRT authorities as well as the operators have been working closely to step up security at our MRT stations.

Complementing this effort in raising public security awareness is a web-based portal called the Emergency Preparedness Information Centre (EPIC), which was launched on 22nd February. EPIC not only keeps the public informed on current developments during a crisis, or National Emergency, it also provides them with information on how to respond to various scenarios. I hope the public will take an interest and go and visit the site.

To raise public awareness on security issues, we have also expanded the Community Safety and Security Programme (CSSP). The Singapore Civil Defence Force has conducted an Exercise Community Spirit activities to give the public an opportunity to learn about how to handle emergency, and these are done not just in our grassroots organisations but will also be done at our schools.

Mr Yatiman asked what more can be done about CSSP. Our Community Safety and Security Programme, which was traditionally focused on local security and safety issues for grassroots organisations, schools and workplaces, will also be expanded to cover issues, such as training in emergency preparedness skills, community vigilance and education on preventive measures. For example, in Sembawang GRC, the Woodlands Civil Defence Executive Committee has organised many such activities to garner resident involvement in the security of their community. Prof. Chin himself has been involved in this. So he knows about it. Last year, the Singapore Civil Defence Force also conducted emergency and evacuation exercises with the management, tenants and workers of the Jurong Point Shopping Centre and a large engineering and construction firm. They would do more of such exercises in the workplaces. Through such programmes, the Government would work hand-in-hand with the community to raise Singaporeans' stake in the security of our nation.

The people themselves must take an interest. They just cannot leave it to the Government to do everything for them. If they do not take an interest, then they will have themselves to blame if something does happen due to their own neglect.

During the debate on the White Paper in January this year, I also pointed out the need to maintain social cohesion and religious harmony as part of our counter-terrorism strategy. Steps have since been taken to preserve this as part of our social and psychological defence. One such example is the Government's Community Involvement Programme. Its goal is to ensure that Singaporeans gain a better understanding of each other's culture and religion. 1.15 pm

So, as far as race relations are concerned, the question which Mr Chandra Mohan raised, I think we are in good shape. But more, of course, can be done by our different races to reach out to understand one another and, at the same time, to know our neighbours. Despite all that we have done, I would urge and advise that we must not be lulled into a sense of complacency. Ironically, the efficiency of our security forces actually throws the gauntlet to the terrorists who see it as a challenge. We must be ready for such an eventuality. The Government has and will continue to work closely with the community to maintain Singapore as a safe and secure best home that it has always been for our people. But that requires the people's cooperation.

Next, I will answer Mr Chandra Mohan's question on the Internal Security Department. He has raised several questions, such as to whom does ISD report to, to who it reports its findings, what are the checks, and that Singaporeans know very little about the ISD. In fact, he said that Singaporeans fear the ISD and there should be a report on the ISD to Parliament, just like some of the Government departments.

Last year, because Singaporeans are quite ignorant about the ISA, and there being some doubts or even questions whether the ISA has been misused, the Ministry took the initiative to publish a booklet. I am not sure whether Members themselves have seen this little booklet called "Why the ISA?" In fact, I had once suggested having this entitled "Everything you wanted to know about the ISA and are afraid to ask"! It is a simple booklet describing what is the ISA, the origin of the ISA, what are the threats facing us, what are the safeguards of the ISA, use of preventive detention and the advisory board and its roles. These are clearly explained in this booklet. It also gives examples of some previous cases in regard to each of the threats. Members who want a copy of it can let me know.

The Internal Security Department is one of the several departments within the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Director of the ISD reports to the Permanent Secretary on all matters pertaining to the Ministry's budget and the financial and human resource management issues. He reports to the Minister on security matters. The Department's budget is governed, like all Government departments, by the general financial procedures and rules in the public service. Its operating budget allocation and its intended use are subject to scrutiny by and require the support of the Ministry of Finance within the larger budget allocated for the Ministry of Home Affairs.

How much do we spend on the ISD, Mr Chandra Mohan asked. It is less than 8% of the Ministry's budget. The ISD's budget and expenditures are also subject to regular audit, like other Government departments. In other words, the money that it has spent, like any other Government department, is subject to tight scrutiny, and they have to be justified before funds are approved.

ISD officers also exercise powers like police officers, because they need them for law enforcement purposes. But they observe the same rules like police officers. They have the same standards of professional discipline and conduct, and they are held accountable for their actions. In other words, ISD officers cannot abuse the law.

Who gets the information, findings and the products of the ISD's work? It depends on the subject matter and who needs to know. The Department's work comprises many security portfolios and programmes, including the subjects of terrorism, espionage, racial and religious extremism, protective security, as well as educating the civil servants on security. Dissemination of intelligence is on a need-to-know basis. In other words, if you do not need to know, there is no business for you to know, you will not be told, and reports are sent only to those who need to know. For example, the Department gives security and intelligence briefings to the Committee of Permanent Secretaries, to keep them informed of the threats and the security issues facing us. It also briefs me and the Prime Minister and, in some instances, members of the Cabinet as well, on the subjects of national security, eg, the Jemaah Islamiyah case.

How do we work with the regional counterparts? ISD has very close relationships with its counterparts in the region, as well as with the other friendly countries. They share and exchange information and they also attend courses of each other's services. They keep each other informed.

How do we measure the efficacy of ISD? Although there are some aspects of its work which can be quantified and we can have quantitative output measures, the efficacy of the Internal Security Department ultimately rests on the qualitative judgment of whether it is effective in meeting its mission of keeping Singapore and the country safe from security threats. I think the record speaks for itself.

How many people are now detained for espionage cases? As of today, actually nobody has been detained. All have been released, and one is on a restriction order.

As the Minister in charge, I believe that the ISD has acquitted itself very well.

The Chairman: Prof. Chin, you can take both your cuts together.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, recently, the Minister announced that the crime rates have risen across-the-board - a 10% increase in crime. Now that the Home Team has the demands of meeting the twin threats of terrorism as well as its traditional role of crime busting, how has the Home Team reorganised itself to meet these twin threats?

As for my cut on community efforts to combat crime, I would just like to ask whether the Minister would consider providing more help, funds and facilities to CSSP programmes now that he wants such programmes to be integrated with the home front security aspects, so that the CSSP programmes can be further enhanced and improved.

The Chairman: Mr Charles Chong is not here. Prof. Chin, you are next again - juvenile and youth crime.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, the statistics on crime rate show that there has been a great increase in youth arrests, and the form of crime that they are doing is mainly on shoplifting. This increase is about 49% since 2001. Can the Minister explain what are the possible causes for this very dramatic increase? Why is there such a high number of students involved? As the vast majority of them are first offenders, what have caused them to stray?

I understand that the Home Team has been working together with schools for a very long time to discourage students from straying. So, why is there suddenly this very, very surprising and dramatic increase? Have the school programmes failed?

The Chairman: Mdm Cynthia Phua is not here. Miss Penny Low.

Miss Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Sir, in the recent release of crime statistics for the year 2002 by the police, it was revealed that a significantly higher number of juveniles were arrested in 2002 compared to 2001. There was in fact an increase of 789 persons, or 55.8%. The three offences committed by juveniles - and the police had defined juveniles as persons between seven and 15 years of age - registering sharp increases were shop theft, as Prof. Chin has mentioned, simple theft, and rioting. Shop theft increased by 35%, simple theft by 116.6%, and rioting by 138.7%.

Sir, there is indeed an urgent call to look into the possible causes of this worrying trend and, more importantly, what can we do about it. I would also like to advocate that resources be committed to embark on such a research on the cause and effect of this increasing trend. An appropriate sampling of the offenders should be studied with the aim of understanding the underlying causes.

From media reports, the crimes committed by youths appear to be more violent nowadays than before. This is again another worrying trend. For many years now, parents and educators were concerned over the access of our youths to materials which are violent in nature. These include movies, TV programmes and cartoons, Internet websites, arcade and computer games. Whilst we may have already banned toy weapons, it is very easy for a child to acquire a formidable arsenal in a computer game to maim and kill. The more he kills, the higher the score, and he ascends to the next level of the game, if he reaches the predetermined score. The graphics and sound effects are very life-like and are designed to keep the child, and even adults, hooked onto the game. Apart from the concern on addiction, the increase in the child's threshold for violence may have other ill effects, like violent behaviour.

Since we are in the process of reviewing our censorship regime, we should perhaps look at the classification of games for different age groups, not unlike the NC16 category we have for movies. We should look at what the developed countries have done in the area of alleviating violence in computer games.

Sir, the adage that the youths of today are the leaders of tomorrow still holds true. We should spare no efforts in doing something to arrest this increasing trend of crimes amongst juveniles and youths. The problem is complex and Singapore is not alone.

Sir, recently, I have been reminded of the story of two British juveniles who lured an innocent toddler and stoned him viciously and left him to die on a railway track, hit by an on-coming train. We are far from that, but we certainly do not want to get there. The Home Team can perhaps take the lead. But the rest of society must join hands. Perhaps the Minister can comment on what and how the community, family and schools can do to:

a) Identify worrying signs in youths and juveniles;

b) Reach out to help the juveniles and youths;

c) Network with various agencies, such as the police and counsellors to help identify our troubled youths; and

d) See what else we can do to help.

The seeds we sow today will bear fruits tomorrow. We must therefore act fast.

The Chairman: Ms Indranee Rajah is not moving. Mr Yatiman Yusof.

Encik Yatiman Yusof: Sir, following the studies on the success of the Koban Community Policing System in Japan, the Singapore Police Force had set up the Neighbourhood Police Posts. For years, residents were made familiar with the bicycle-riding policemen patrolling their neighbourhoods and the policemen were seen as friends by our heartlanders. The effectiveness of this programme is public knowledge now. However, due to the need to be cost-effective, the manpower aspect of police operations was reviewed. An island-wide reorganisation of neighbourhood policing was carried out, and Neighbourhood Police Centres were set up. In the Tampines GRC, one such centre is now operating.

I would like to ask the Minister to what extent has the NPC been successful in providing the effective safety and security network in Singapore, especially the heartland areas. 1.30 pm

Mr Heng Chee How: Sir, the elderly person is a relatively easier target for criminals in any society. This is partly because they are generally not physically as strong or as fast as younger persons. Their ability to put up a successful struggle or even to accurately identify the criminal would also tend to be less than that of younger persons. The less educated elderly are also easier targets for cheats.

In a climate of economic uncertainty or economic downturn, their vulnerability would be increased. If we look at the Police crime figures for last year, crime against the elderly has also shown a significant increase, whether it was robbery or cheating.

Sir, Singapore's population is rapidly aging. What this means is that the total number of elderly persons and the proportion of elderly persons in our population would both grow. I therefore think that we need to anticipate the implications of this trend and to take certain steps to address them so that our elderly can enjoy a good quality of life and not have to contend with a progressive loss of a sense of security and an increasing fear of crime.

On this, I urge MHA to continue to emphasise all crime prevention education efforts for the elderly and their families. In addition, I also suggest that MHA consider different ways of increasing the deterrent factor to deter crimes against the elderly. For instance, we currently have laws that impose heavier penalties for aggravated forms of crimes or for crimes that particularly put fear into the victims. I urge that crimes against the elderly, especially violent property crimes, such as robbery, snatch theft and cheating be classified as an aggravated form of crime that attracts heavier penalties.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, several MPs have raised concerns over an increase in crime rates in 2002. The nearly 10% increase in total seizable offence for 2002 should be seen in the context of an improving crime situation which has been trending downwards in a positive direction in the last 15 years.

The crime rate in 2002 was the lowest in the last 15 years with the exception of 2001. The crime rate last year was also lower than that in 1998 when a similar increase in crime rate was observed. Efforts by the Police last year resulted in 15.4% or 2,917 more arrests. The number of persons arrested last year was the highest number in the last 15 years, and the increase of 15.4% is proportionately more than the increase in crime rate of about 10%. So we must see the increase in crime rate in its proper context.

Let me assure Members that Singapore remains one of the safest cities in the world. In a recent worldwide survey of cities in November 2002 conducted by Mercer Human Resource Consultancy, Singapore is jointly ranked the second safest city in the world, together with Helsinki, Zurich, Geneva and Bern. Lumxembourg was named the world's safest city. A few of Japan's cities, which ranked 7th, were the only other Asian country in the top 10 positions. The next highest South-east Asian cities ranked after Singapore were Johore Bahru and Kuala Lumpur. They were at the 73rd position.

Prof. Chin has asked if the competing demands of security and crime threats have posed a strain on our Home Team resources and, more importantly, whether we can sustain ourselves, with the need to watch out for security and, at the same time, also deal with crimes.

The need to combat both crimes and security threats after 911 has certainly stretched not just the Police resources, but also our Home Team resources. However, the Police has coped well so far. Following September 11, crime and security patrols were increased significantly, as Members would have noted. The Police was able to achieve this by firstly, leveraging on every available staff, Police NSmen as well as officers from the specialist units such as the Gurkha Contingent. Secondly, Police streamlined its response to non-urgent cases so that resources can be focused on more urgent ones. Thirdly, Police has scaled down non-essential services, such as handling of the lost and found reports and rescuing trapped animals, in order to free up scarce resources. Let me assure Members that the Police is geared up to face the challenges ahead. Neither the challenges of security nor crime will be neglected.

Closer examination of the crime situation reveals an emerging pattern of concern in two areas. One, juvenile crime and the other crime against the elderly, as Mayor Heng suggested.

On youth crime, 2002 saw a significant increase in the arrest of youth offenders who are categorised between 7 and 19. But actually, there are very few that are at the younger ages. This increase was by 49%, from 2,756 to 4,099 youths arrested. As in previous years, the majority, or 68%, of these offenders were arrested for theft and related offences. For theft, a lot of them are shoplifting offences. For shoplifting offences, many of them can be prevented if the retailers themselves are more vigilant. 8% of those arrested for simple thefts and shop thefts were repeat offenders, because some of them have the habit of repeating the offence. Youths arrested for public order offences, namely, serious assault, rioting and unlawful assembly, made up another 13% of youth offenders arrested last year. Of these, 5% were repeat offences. Although the numbers of youth offenders arrested for theft and related offences and public offences were respectively 54% and 60% higher than that in the year 2001, the overall figure is still lower than in 1998. So again, we must see this in the context of a declining crime situation in the whole of Singapore for the last 15 years.

The increase in youth crime is consistent with the overall increase in crime, and it could be due to a myriad of reasons. We note that this phenomenon is not peculiar only to Singapore but also it is endemic in most developed countries and we have taken measures to curb this trend.

What are the causes of the rising crime among the youths? That is a subject which the Inter-Ministry Committee on Youth Crime (IMYC) chaired by Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs, Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Hee, and comprising the senior representatives from the Ministries of Community Development and Sports, Education, Home Affairs, the Police, the Prisons Department, National Youth Council, the National Council of Social Services, and academics, etc, could study further.

But already under the Inter-Ministry Committee on Youth Crime, there are various programmes introduced. For example, 81 schools initiated the School Community and Safety Programme that was targeted at preventing juvenile delinquency. Other measures include the Police-School Liaison System where there is direct liaison between the schools and the Police would provide them with an instant connection, as well as the Honorary Volunteer Special Constabulary (School) Scheme. These are the teachers or disciplinary masters who become voluntary special constables who can put on an uniform and help to instill some discipline among the young.

Has the school programme failed? Again, the IMYC could take a look at that. My own guess right now is that I do not think so because if you look at the types of people who commit youth crimes, they are not mainly our students.

To specifically address the rise in theft-related public-order crimes amongst youth offenders, the Police has produced and developed an information package on shop theft and rioting for more than 300 schools and tertiary institutions. The Prisons Visit Programme will be expanded to reach out to more youths and not just to those who are involved in gangs. Over 4,000 students and other youths have attended this Prisons Visit Programme. The students are organised in groups and they go and take a look at what is inside the prison. Those who went there would know what life is like. I hope that they would understand that it is not a comfortable place to be in.

There are various other measures in place to help arrested youth offenders to remain crime-free. This includes the Guidance Programme and the StreetWise Programme which comprises counselling, supervision, developmental and academic support, an active parental involvement session aimed at keeping our youths away from crime.

The other area of concern is crime against the elderly. We read about this in the papers from time and time. We are therefore wondering whether indeed this is a serious problem. Let me put the numbers in perspective. In 2002, there were 95 elderly victims of robbery compared to 80 in 2001. More than three-quarters of these victims are females. Cheating involving elderly victims also rose from 43 to 63 persons.

I agree with Mayor Heng Chee How that crimes against such vulnerable persons are despicable and the offenders deserve enhanced punishment. But I do not think it is necessary to have a separate scheme of graduated penalties for those who commit crimes against the elderly or any other vulnerable groups, such as children, the handicapped or women. Otherwise, we start to divide people and punish them according to the age or according to their vulnerability. In all cases of crimes against such vulnerable people, the prosecution can press for a deterrent sentence and the courts may impose a higher sentence if there are aggravating circumstances or factors. Indeed, the prosecution, as well as the courts, has done so.

To educate the elderly on crime prevention, the Police launched the Crime Prevention Ambassadors Programme in September 2002 to recruit active senior citizens to help the Police to promote crime prevention awareness among the elderly. Police also organised chit-chat sessions, exhibitions and media campaigns targeted specifically at the elderly.

I have also, on several occasions in this House, stressed the importance of the community to join forces with the Police to fight against crimes. Now more than ever, the community is needed to safeguard our security. Residents and communities must take responsibilities for their own security as well. The Police officers cannot be everywhere. A significant number in our community do take part in the various activities. Efforts such as the Crime Prevention Ambassadors Programme, which I mentioned earlier, remind us of the important role that the community can play in combating crime. The public assisted in the arrest of 44.6% of all criminals involved in major crimes last year. When I mentioned this figure to visiting Police officers or the Ministers in charge of Police, they were surprised because, in their countries, it is not easy to get the public to help out in arresting suspects. In our case, I think people know that we run a clean system, the Police can be trusted, and they have confidence in the way we do things. I want to commend these public-spirited citizens who come forward.

As Members are aware, the cornerstone of our community partnership effort is the Community Safety and Security Programme where members of the local community work together with the Home Team to tackle local security and safety issues. Today, we have nearly 600 Neighbourhood Watch Zones covering almost all of Singapore, implementing a wide variety of programmes ranging from Citizens-on-Patrol, crime prevention discussions for the elderly, to house visits where crime prevention information is disseminated. I would want to encourage all Singaporeans to make themselves aware of these programmes and to take part in them, if they wish to play a more active role in tackling crime.

Mr Yatiman Yusof asked about the Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC) system of community policing and whether this has helped the level of community involvement in crime prevention. I am pleased to inform the House that the transition has gone on smoothly. Members may recall that the Police decided to change the Neighbourhood Police Post system to the Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC) system in 1996. Now, we have 31 of the 32 planned NPCs in operation. The last one, Sengkang NPC, will be due to open in the middle of next year. 1.45 pm

To what extent have the Neighbourhood Police Centres been successful? I would say that they have been effective in keeping our crime rates low. The larger number of personnel at each NPC allows the Police to deploy more officers out on patrols, thus increasing police visibility in their neighbourhood. With resources, such as fast-response cars, the NPCs also respond faster to urgent cases. They have established strong working relationships with grassroots organisations and other agencies, such as schools, family service centres and so on in their precincts. And the residents can raise any local safety and security concerns, and our officers will work with them to design and implement effective solutions.

Are we going to give the CSSPs more resources? CSSP, by its definition, is community effort. The Police will be there to help them, guide them, provide them with much knowledge as possible, give them the figures and tell them what else they can do to help protect themselves. Ultimately, the community themselves will have to find the resources with the support given by the Home Team.

We also have the National Crime Prevention Council. They also work very closely with the various industrial sectors. From time to time, they hold meetings with industry representatives and give them suggestions on how to deal with certain issues. The Council also produces publications, videos, etc, to help educate the workforce as well as the management, and the Police provide the Council with as much support as possible.

Sir, the crime rate actually went up last year, but it is well under control. Let me assure the public and Members that the Police is well poised to deal with the situation but, again, as I have said, please do not depend on the Police to be everywhere. The public must do their part, if we want Singapore to remain a safe and secure best home.

The Chairman: Ms Indranee Rajah is not moving. Mdm Ho Geok Choo.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Sir, I would like to raise an issue with regard to drug abuse. Drug abusers, last year, registered a marginal 1% decline. On the other hand, the number of new drug abusers had increased, and this has hit a 5-year record high. In fact, 911 new drug abusers were arrested last year, making it a 16% increase over 2001. The good news is that the number of heroin abusers arrested has decreased. It made up of 66% of last year's arrests compared to 80% in previous years. Of the number of new abusers last year, two-thirds were men aged 30 and above, and more than half of them were men in their 20s. Sir, this is worrying as the trend seems to indicate that younger adults are experimenting with synthetic drugs, like ice and catamine at nightspots. Last year, the number of ice abusers doubled while catamine abusers went up almost 90%. The general impression is that synthetic drugs are non-addictive and harmless. Doctors, on the other hand, have warned that these drugs may give abusers kicks and altered sensations, and prolonged abuse will cause irreversible damage to the organs. Can the Minister tell this House what is being done to arrest the growing trend of synthetic drug abuse? What programmes are there available to ensure that the harmful effects of synthetic drugs are made known to students and the general population?

Encik Yatiman Yusof: Sir, the latest figures have indicated a general decline in the numbers of those arrested for old drug offenders. These are people who take heroin, morphine, marijuana and opium. We have good reasons to feel encouraged by the decline of drug offenders under this category, congratulate the anti-drug agency and the community-based groups involved in counselling and rehabilitation for their fine work. At the same time, we are deeply concerned with the increase in the number of new drug offenders, including those taking ice and ketamine, especially among the young. Given the tenacity in which the anti-drug agency work, I am confident that we can tackle this new problem too. What kind of cooperation that the Police needs from the people to make sure that this new effort is successful?

Secondly, during my meet-the-people sessions, I have seen less and less drug abuse related cases referred to me. During their monthly meetings, members of the Tampines Anti-Drug Task Force Committee shared their observations with me. They said that one of the key factors for the declining number of drug offenders is due to the long-term detention which was introduced some years ago. I would like to ask the Minister whether this is the case. I also like to ask the Minister on what other more effective measures that the Ministry has in mind to tackle the drug menace in this country.

Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair: Sir, on the prison system. Our Prisons Department's mission is "A key partner in criminal justice. We protect society through the safe custody and rehabilitation of offenders, cooperating in prevention and aftercare."

Sir, we have a secure and exemplary prison system. The Prisons Department has done a good job over the years. I believe there are many rehabilitation initiatives conducted by the prison authorities. Could the Minister elaborate on some of the main initiatives being taken? Rehabilitative measures adopted by the prison authorities are commendable, and I hope they will continue to rehabilitate our prisoners in order that convicted persons can be fully or partially rehabilitated and, upon release from prison, would get a second chance in life to be law-abiding and good persons serving their families and Singapore within their own capabilities.

Sir, are there studies being carried out relating to sentencing of accused persons found guilty in court, detention of drug addicts and the effect of imprisonment on these persons and avoiding commission of further crimes by them? In other words, has the deterrent form of sentencing through imprisonment been effective? What is the effect of imprisonment on families, their employment problems, social and matrimonial problems, etc? Perhaps I could suggest that there be a joint study done by sociologists, prison authorities, Ministry of Home Affairs and the legal fraternity to conduct studies on the efficacy of rehabilitation of criminals in our sentencing and prison system. If available, what are the findings in other jurisdictions on such matters? Are there lessons to be learnt by us?

In terms of criminalisation, citizens who are convicted may not be able to go abroad because of their criminal records. Therefore, it is important, where possible, to avoid criminalisation of our citizens. Perhaps these areas could be addressed by the Minister.

Assoc. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang (Nominated Member): Sir, I would like to add to the comments that hon. Member, Mr Chandra Mohan, has just mentioned. Over the years, the Ministry has progressively taken innovative steps to improve the rehabilitation programmes in the prisons, reformative training centres and drug rehabilitation centres. These programmes, if effective, should help to reform the offenders. These programmes too should also be able to help different categories of offenders under the charge of the Prisons Department. One such group are those who commit offences of a sexual nature arising from some psychological disorder, offences such as outraging of modesty, exhibitionism and sexual assaults including rape, for example. In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister (1) what has been done; and (2) is enough being done by way of specialised therapeutic treatment and other rehabilitation programmes for such incarcerated offenders, so that there is minimal danger and, ideally, no danger of them repeating their offences upon discharge from the penal and correctional institutions.

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Sir, former offenders often leave their penal institutions with the desire to turn over a new leaf. Many strive to build their lives and they certainly desire to lead normal lives. One of the constant struggles is the stigma that stays with them for a very long time - the label of being an ex-convict. With this label, many have difficulties securing stable employment simply because employers resist employing them, sometimes even disregarding the length of time they have been able to stay away from crime or drugs, nor whether they have the necessary qualifications to do the job. Sentencing them to institutions achieves the objective of taking away their freedom from them, apart from penalising them for their misbehaviours. But, often times, they do not necessarily gain total freedom, even when they are released. Some continue to struggle to achieve normalcy, but after several attempts and constantly being tormented by societal stigmas and prejudices, many are led back to their old ways. Yet, there are those who are resilient enough to stick through the odds.

Sir, many professionals who work with ex-convicts will testify that expunging the records of those former offenders who have shown their ability to stay away from crime for a period of time will enhance their continued recovery and contribution to society. They are resilient. Expunging their records will surely enable them to seek regular and stable employment. Thus, providing stability to their lives and that of their family members. Yesterday, we heard that the civil service has started employing ex-convicts based on their merit. Human nature will not stop us from having a second thought about the person, no matter how qualified he is if we know that he has a criminal record. I am certain their chances of seeking employment, whether in the private or public sectors, will be greatly enhanced if their criminal records are expunged.

Yesterday, we heard the Minister for Law agreeing on the need to decriminalise some regulatory offences. This is indeed laudable. Last year, the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs reported in this House that the Ministry is considering the amendment to the Registration of Criminals Act, so that those convicted of minor offences will have their criminal records rendered stanched or expunged after a certain period if they do not re-offend. Indeed, this will further help ex-offenders find jobs, as the records will no longer feature in the assessment of an individual's suitability for the job. I would like to ask the Minister the status of this process. When can we expect the amendment to be introduced in this House?

Sir, as our society develops and matures, we must reflect it through our willingness to be forgiving and compassionate. I look forward to the proposed amendment to be introduced and for us to be able to indeed facilitate and enhance every Singaporean's potential to the fullest.

The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Sir, I will respond to the speeches of Mdm Ho Geok Choo, Encik Yatiman Yusof, Prof. Ngiam and Dr Maliki, and my colleague, Mr Maidin, will respond to Mr Chandra Mohan.

First, the drug situation. Both Mdm Ho and Mr Yatiman have expressed some concerns about the drug situation, in particular, about the synthetic drug abuse situation, especially amongst the young. Heroin used to be the main drug abuse for more than 30 years. However, the number of people arrested for abusing heroin has been falling steadily over the past 10 years. Last year, some 2,200 heroin abusers were arrested, as compared to 5,300 in 1992. So the number has come down quite a bit. On the other hand, synthetic drug abuse has risen in recent years. About 30% of local drug abusers arrested last year consumed synthetic drugs such as ecstasy, methamphetamine and ketamine. The number of synthetic drug abusers has more than doubled from 438 in 1999 to 970 last year. Amongst young abusers, aged 19 and below, synthetic drug abusers have displaced heroin as the main drug of abuse. And I think this is also the point made by Mdm Ho. 61% of young abusers arrested in 2002 were synthetic drug abusers. 2.00 pm

Sir, this may sound like frightening figures. But I think I should put these figures in perspective, because I would like to assure the House that the overall drug situation is not a bleak one. Let me cite some figures. Firstly, the total number of drug abusers arrested has declined from over 6,000 in 1994 to under 3,500 last year. Secondly, the number of drug abusers, aged 19 and below, has also declined over the years, from a high of 679 young abusers arrested in 1993 to 215 last year. As a percentage of total abusers arrested, the number of young abusers arrested for drug consumption has also fallen from more than 11% in 1993 to about 6% in 2002. Hence, the overall drug situation actually has kept on improving, which has been the case for the last six or seven years.

But I think all that we read points to this new threat that is emerging. The absolute numbers are not large. But in terms of the percentage increase, I think that is a concern. Hence, MHA takes a serious view of the growing abuse of synthetic drugs and we will take action to nip it in the bud. As Mdm Ho very succinctly puts it, synthetic drugs are harmful and possibly even fatal. I think that is the first misconception that must be dispelled. Because anyone thinking of experimenting with synthetic drugs must not delude themselves into believing that these drugs are harmless or non-addictive or even hip. They pose similar health and mental risks to the individual as opiate drugs.

MHA takes a comprehensive and multi-pronged approach to tackling the drug problem. What do I mean by multi-pronged? A total integrated approach encompassing strict laws, vigorous enforcement, proactive preventive drug education, rehabilitation and aftercare.

Firstly, enforcement. The Central Narcotics Bureau conducts regular raids against drug abusers and traffickers. Last year alone, CNB carried out 51 major drug raids and broke up 32 drug trafficking syndicates. CNB also works closely with its counterparts in neighbouring countries to exchange information and conduct joint operations. This ensures that we tackle the drug situation even before it reaches our shores. CNB is also active in preventive drug education and has stepped up efforts on publicising the dangers of abusing synthetic drugs. A host of preventive education initiatives, including talks, competitions and other mass outreach activities, have been organised to communicate the anti-drug message. In particular, the National Council Against Drug Abuse, which is chaired by a private sector person and also supported by a lot of private sector people with different expertise and backgrounds, plays a key role. And it has been very innovative in mounting programmes that reach out to students and young people in ways that will appeal to them, in particular drawing in members of the mass media and advertising agencies to put out very striking publicity materials warning against the taking of drugs.

The third prong, Sir, is rehabilitation. New opiate abusers are currently given a chance to undergo rehabilitation at drug rehabilitation centres. These are the heroin abusers. In contrast, new synthetic drug abusers are prosecuted in court and, if convicted, are sent to prison. MHA is now considering whether we should also send synthetic drug abusers to drug rehabilitation centres. This will ensure that such abusers have the opportunity to undergo structured and supervised rehabilitation. This will help them overcome the temptation to abuse drugs.

Mr Yatiman has asked about the effectiveness of the long-term imprisonment scheme. The scheme was introduced in 1998 with the twin objectives of removing hardcore drug addicts from society, to prevent them from contaminating others as well as deterring other addicts. Members will know that under the scheme, hardcore addicts with three or more convictions are no longer sent to DRCs but to prison instead. Sir, since then, more than 4,000 drug offenders have been admitted to prison under the scheme. The first long-term prisoner was released in December 2001 and to-date, about 650 of them have been released. Only 19 of them have since re-offended. Although it is still too early to gauge the effectiveness of the scheme, the initial results are encouraging. But, still, in April last year, MHA further strengthened the scheme by extending community-based rehabilitation programme to these long-term imprisonment offenders. So for the last few months, they will still get help from various agencies, including half-way houses. To-date, about 250 long-term inmates have been emplaced in half-way houses with a successful completion rate of 98%.

Sir, that is the drug situation. I want to assure Members that we have things under control, but we do not rest on our laurels. We recognise these new threats and indeed will take steps to nip them in the bud. And, of course, we will continue to remain vigilant and continue to monitor the global and regional developments on the drug scene. I believe our multi-pronged approach has borne fruits and we will continue to press on.

Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang has asked what more can be done to rehabilitate sex offenders incarcerated in prisons, the reformative training centres and the Singapore Boys' Home. First, Sir, let me assure Members that there are existing programmes in these institutions to rehabilitate sexual offenders. Such programmes are generally successful in preventing sexual offenders from re-offending. Out of 156 offenders released from prisons since the year 2000, only seven have recommitted a sex offence. So that is a small percentage.

The Prisons Department conducts what is called a 3R treatment programme for sex offenders detained in prisons and the reformative training centres. This programme aims to achieve the 3Rs of "respect, restraint and responsibility" in the individuals through empathy training, victim awareness, relapse prevention and self-monitoring. The programme is tailored to the needs and risk profile of each individual sex offender. Sex offenders also receive assistance in integrating back to society after their release. A personalised relapse prevention plan is developed for each offender and reinforced by follow-up support sessions. Eleven sex offenders have completed the programme since its launch last year. Seven of these have since been released from prison and so far, none has re-offended.

For sex offenders detained in the Singapore Boys' Home, the Ministry of Community Development and Sports conducts a customised programme called the "Positive Adolescence Sexuality Treatment" (or PAST). The programme aims to develop the skills, knowledge and awareness needed to change the youth's sexual offending behaviour. Psychological counselling is also provided. Fourteen offenders have undergone the programme since its introduction in the year 2000, and so far, none has re-offended.

In short, Sir, the re-offending rate of sex offenders is very low. I think we are happy about that and we want to ensure that it keeps that way. But, of course, as we always do in MHA, we will continue to improve our existing programmes, in this case, for sex offenders and, where necessary, introduce new ones. Indeed, if Prof. Ngiam has some ideas on how to improve our programmes, I would be very happy to hear from him.

Yes, I agree with Dr Maliki that we should also help ex-offenders who come out from prison, particularly those who are genuine, who really want to find a job. And I think many of us in our MPS will come across cases like that - constituents who have served their time, who have been punished and who really want to get back on track, including getting emplaced in a job. Hence, MHA, as I have announced, has been reviewing the legal provisions to allow a person's criminal record to be removed. We are studying the experience of other countries such as the UK and Hong Kong, which currently have provisions to allow criminal records to be rendered spent. Criminal record that is rendered spent means that the record only surfaces for court sentencing purposes, but he would still have been considered to have a prior conviction for employment purposes.

Hence, what we are considering is the possibility of allowing a complete removal of a criminal record, that is, expunging it. Because, if implemented, this would mean that the person whose record is completely removed is deemed not to have been convicted of the offence recorded. To a question in an employment application form as to whether he has a prior conviction record, he can then reply no'. This will be helpful in rehabilitating ex-offenders who have genuinely changed. Of course, this is something which is very rarely done. But I think this will really help the offender. Because it is not a matter of whether or not his record has been spent; in other words, whether it will surface in a court proceeding or whether it is taken out from the record, but rather to a question in an employment form on whether he has a prior conviction, if he answers yes', then employers may still be hesitant. So, it is an intricate thing that we want to study, and we are taking some time because we want to do as much as we can to help genuine offenders. We hope to complete this, possibly within the next few months.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M): Mr Chandra Mohan has asked for some elaboration on the main initiatives for rehabilitative programmes in the prisons and also how and what we do to provide the best possible second chance in life for ex-prisoners.

Sir, as he rightly pointed out, the traditional role of our prison and its systems is to protect our society by putting criminals who pose a threat to society behind bars and, at the same time, to deter any would-be criminals. In recent years, however, the Prisons Department has done a lot more to help prisoners to reform or rehabilitate themselves. Programmes have been introduced over the last few years to help rehabilitate them and reintegrate offenders back into society. We have seen that these measures have had some measure of success. For example, the re-offending rate has declined steadily from about 56% in 1995 to about less than 35% in the year 2000. And the Prisons Department has pioneered the concept of CARE (Community Action for the Rehabilitation of Ex-offenders) which provides for a structured rehabilitation programme for offenders that begins at admission, and continues beyond their release. Upon admission, inmates are individually assessed and a personalised treatment plan is drawn up for them. Inmates first undergo a core skills programme to help them cope with their imprisonment. Modules covered include self-control, issues arising from imprisonment, stress management, etc. Each inmate is also assigned a prison officer as his personal supervisor. And the offenders then undergo specialised treatment programmes targeted at specific offending behaviour. Offenders who wish to continue their education can also be sent to the Prison School which was established in the year 2000. The School runs courses ranging from skills training up to 'A' levels for offenders. And I am happy to report to this House that prisoners enrolled at the School have constantly achieved good results when they sit for 'N', or 'O', levels. 2.15 pm

Suitable offenders are also given the opportunity to undertake food training during their stay in prison, and training ranging from food preparation, hair dressing or IT skills is provided to prepare offenders for a wide variety of jobs available in the Prison, or later on outside. Besides, inculcating good work ethics and discipline, such vocational training also enhances the employability of offenders after their release.

Sir, to help ease the often difficult transition back into society, the Home Detection Scheme was implemented sometime in the year 2000 to allow selected offenders to serve the last few months of their sentence at home with electronic monitoring. So far, over 2,000 have benefited from this scheme, and the completion rate for the scheme is almost 100%.

Sir, the help that we give to offenders does not end with his release from prison. In the area of aftercare, we have brought together various agencies under the Community Action for the Rehabilitation of Ex-offenders network to provide aftercare counselling and assistance to released offenders. The network includes organisations, such as the Singapore Aftercare Association and Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association. Both help ex-offenders to return to society during the pre-release phase and continue to support the offenders after their release. We also have the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprise (SCORE) providing assistance in job placement.

Sir, the Prisons Department will continue to work with the relevant agencies to improve the effectiveness of our rehabilitation system. We also need the support of all Singaporeans to help in the reintegration of the offenders into society. Much will depend on the willingness of Singaporeans to give these ex-offenders a second chance.

Sir, Mr Chandra Mohan also mentioned about the need for some research and study to see the implications of all this. I think this matter will be looked into.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: I have two issues to raise, arising out of feedback from members of the public. The first has to do with the very positive response towards the new driving licence, which I regret I do not have one. But I have seen them and they look rather attractive. The question raised by members of the public was whether we could not have that to replace our IC. Because after all, the driving licence for citizens is the same as the IC number. So why can we not have that to replace?

The second question I have is concerning this: Can we do more with this new driving licence because they complain that they are having too many cards in their wallets that, sometimes, they look like they are carrying a pack of playing cards, rather than carrying a wallet. The question is whether the Ministry of Home Affairs can come up with a multi-purpose IC driving licence, cashcard, everything in one.

The second issue is a matter of some concern, and it has to do with the privacy of information in the registry kept by the Government. In particular, I have been approached by parents with adopted children who have expressed concerns that, if a natural mother has the birth certificate number of the child, would she, in later years, be able to trace the whereabouts of that child simply by giving the number to any institution, like the hospital or other institutions? If so, can such adopted children be given new numbers so that their identity would be protected? These are the two questions.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Presently, children born overseas of a Singaporean mother and a foreigner father have to apply for citizenship if they want to be Singaporeans. However, if they are born overseas to a Singaporean father, they are citizens by descent. I do not want to argue this as a gender issue because I know where this would get us in this House. Instead, I would offer these three reasons why we should review this Article in the Constitution, which was written in a totally different era.

First, marriage trends. More Singapore women, especially our graduates, are marrying foreign men and going overseas. They have babies overseas and would like their children to be Singaporeans. But because of the constitutional hurdle, they face bothersome red tape when they are trying to do the patriotic thing. Ironically, there are relatively fewer Singaporean men who marry foreign wives and then have babies overseas. Yet, they are given as a right the convenience of citizenship by descent for their children.

Second, demographic. We are facing falling fertility rates. We do not have enough babies to replace ourselves. I would think that we should be looking at all manner of legitimate ways to increase our pool of babies and to enrich our gene pool. Allowing children born to Singapore women overseas to be citizens by descent would seem to qualify as one.

Third reason, globalisation. We live in an increasingly globalised world and our citizens, both men and women, travel and work overseas in rising numbers. While Singaporeans are overseas, they tend to feel more patriotic and conscious of being Singaporeans; some more than others. Such national consciousness is to be encouraged and we should be appealing to it, rather than making it that much harder for a group of Singaporeans - in this case, the women - to nurture it and to pass on the rights of a citizen to their children by descent.

In his previous reply, the Home Affairs Minister said that although the Constitution has made this differentiation between men and women for children born overseas, the practical effect is not great. He said that most applications for citizenship of children born overseas to a Singaporean parent are approved. But this is like a father saying to his son that his children can enjoy the privilege of becoming part of the family by descent, and telling his daughter that her children have to apply to be a part of the family. And then adding that the practical difference is not great as the application would probably be approved. I think, to the daughter, it would make all the difference between feeling whether they are part of the family or not. I would urge the Minister to review this policy.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I am not quite sure the Ministry of Home Affairs is the correct Ministry to address my point. But since it is redirected from the Prime Minister's Office to this Ministry, here it goes.

As I explained recently in the Budget debate, there must be greater benefits for our citizens than foreign nationals working here. Singapore citizenship must entail greater privilege than just legal status, rights and responsibilities. We need to offer citizens more than what non-citizens can get. Encouraging citizens to develop a sense of emotional rootedness to Singapore cannot be effective when the Government is actively encouraging skilled and semi-skilled foreign workers and talents into Singapore to compete with Singaporeans for that premium jobs. This is especially so when unemployment is at its highest. And for male citizens, they have to give up 21/2 years of their lives to protect our land. On top of that, there are a few weeks of reservist training every year.

Sir, there must be strong economic and social reasons for Singaporeans to be proud to want to remain as a Singapore citizen. My proposal is, Sir, over and above the tax rebates, the ERS and the New Singapore Shares, citizens should also get a few percentage lower in personal tax rate than non-citizens working here. For men with active NS liability, they should get another 2% off their personal tax rate. This would give stronger meaning to the idea of citizenship, that citizens have their privilege and show the Government's greater appreciation of our citizens.

As for social reasons, the Government will do well to go beyond electoral politics to uphold the principles and ideas enshrined in our National Pledge. This will greatly inspire pride in our citizens and give meaning to what we truly stand for as a society.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, Prof. Chin raised two questions. One is whether we can combine the driving licence and other important licences into the NRIC so that it serves multiple purposes. Second, whether new registration numbers can be given to adopted children.

Let me inform the Member that my Ministry has actually studied whether to combine the driving licence with the NRIC, prior to introducing the new driving licence last year. In fact, we have even gone further. We have also studied the electronic national registration IC system which will have a chip on the card and it will be able to do multiple services, like what Prof. Chin has suggested - cashcard, driving licence, medical record, etc. We looked around and asked many agencies but there does not seem to be a demand for this service and it is very costly to provide such an IC with a chip that performs multiple roles. That being the case, we abandoned the project. But that may not be the end of it. We will continue to look at it and see whether, in future, there may be a use for it.

As regards combining the driving licence with the IC, we actually have gone further than that. We thought of doing away with the driving licence. In other words, no need to carry a physical licence - the plastic card, or whatever. We wanted to consult the people which we do from time to time. So we had many focused group discussions with the community, with the residents, with the ordinary Singaporeans. The majority of them said, "Please let us have the licence. We like to keep the licence. We rather not do without one." They are afraid to leave home without it.

So we have the NRIC and the new driving licence. We did not want to combine the new driving licence with the NRIC, because the driving licence is subject to revocation. If something happens to the driver, he does not drive cautiously and the court were to debar him from driving, the licence will have to be revoked. Then what happens? We would have to give back his NRIC. Or if he takes up another class of licence, what happens to his NRIC? We have to call him back and put another sticker to it, or change his NRIC. So it is a bit complicated. Or even when his licence is suspended, we have to take back his licence and say, "Now, you don't have the licence for three months." What does he do in between? Here, he must have something to identify himself if he needs to go to the authorities or the bank for whatever services. So we decided to simplify it by just having the NRIC as the NRIC and have the new driving licence as a new driving licence. Now, it is much more convenient for people to have the licence. The new driving licence is for a life-time. Licence holders pay $50 and they can keep the licence for life. So please do take care of it. Because if they lose it, they have got to pay a replacement fee.

As regards the question on new registration numbers for adopted children, in my view, the existing system, while not perfect, minimises the likelihood of an adopted child's identity being divulged. Although the child born in Singapore retains the same birth registration number when he is re-registered after adoption, he actually receives a new birth certificate that shows the particulars of his adoptive parents. His new birth record after adoption is no longer linked to that of his natural parents. His original birth record would form part of the adoption register which the Singapore Immigration and Registration will not disclose or release to anyone. So, it is a completely new birth certificate, with the adoptive parents' names on it.

2.30 pm

Is it better to give a new number? Maybe giving a new number may make it more difficult for the child's natural parents to trace the child. But the drawback of this is that the adopted child would get a birth registration that is out of sequence with the birth registration numbers of other children, because birth registration numbers are assigned according to the sequence of birth and registration. Therefore, we should keep it that way rather than to change unnecessarily. Indeed, a new number that shows a child registered much later when he is actually born in the earlier part of the year may give away his identity. So, we decided that we should keep to the present system. This system has served us well for a long time and I do not think we need to change it at all. For 23 years we have not received any adverse comments on this.

Ms Irene Ng's reasons for changing the Constitution to treat women and men who marry foreigners, and for women who give birth to children overseas, equally as a Singapore man who marries a foreigner are understandable. I am sympathetic to her reasons. But when we change the Constitution, it is a serious matter. There are good reasons why we have our present system. Ours is a patrilineal society, just as a child follows the father's surname, citizen by descent is also tied to the father's nationality. But my Ministry has already undertaken a review of this, and we are looking at all our citizenship laws to ensure that they keep abreast of the times for some of the reasons mentioned by Ms Irene Ng. But any change would have significant and far-reaching consequences and implications. We not only have to amend the Constitution, we have to take into account the other implications. And we will make changes only after a thorough review. So, a review is in hand.

Mr Steve Chia was wondering whether I am the correct person or whether the Ministry of Home Affairs is the correct Ministry to answer his cut. Even if this were to be under PMO, as he originally intended, I believe the Prime Minister will ask me to answer this question. It is a matter of citizenship, since anything that looks like citizenship matters, it comes under the Ministry of Home Affairs. So, he will get the same answer, whether it is listed under PMO or MHA.

Specifically, Mr Chia talked about social and economic reasons why people want to become Singaporeans. For social reasons, he suggested that we should give full meaning to the Pledge. We do. All citizens are treated equally as provided for in the Constitution. Therefore, we have not made any distinction. Otherwise, it will be in violation of the Constitution. For economic reasons, I hope people do not become citizens just because of economic gains. That would be the wrong reason to do so. They come here because it is a good place to be in to bring up their children, to work, to make friends and to build their ties.

As regards his suggestion to grant special tax rates for citizens versus non-citizens, I am afraid I have to tell him that under international law, eg, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Model Tax Convention, we cannot have discrimination on tax on account of nationality. Violating this will adversely affect the international agreements that we have signed. Instead, we have found other ways of giving citizens more in return. We have given them more than what we normally would have given a non-citizen, and these are in the form of tax rebates and reliefs to citizens. For example, for NSmen who have done National Service - and that is where we talk about recognising people who have contributed to National Service - they, their parents and spouses receive tax reliefs. Non-citizens do not. Procreation tax rebates of up to $20,000 per child are only available to the parents if they are citizens. The Government has also treated citizens differently in education, health, public housing and, in the last many years, as Mr Steve Chia cited, we have given CPF and Medisave top-ups, Singapore Telecoms shares, New Singapore Shares, Economic Restructuring Shares. And NSmen receive more in quantum than non-citizens and non-NSmen.

I do not want to talk about privileges and to calculate whether to benefit more or not by becoming a citizen. Instead of asking what benefits a citizen is entitled to, I think the Member ought to examine how he and every other Singaporean can contribute to home and country. Being Singaporean is about having a shared sense of pride and belonging to our country. Singapore is where our family, friends and hopes are. All of us, as Singaporeans, we believe in the Singapore way of life and our shared values, ie, our multi-racial, multi-religious society, meritocracy, compassion, justice, equality, hard work, determination, a safe and secure best home. Indeed, there is a deep sense of emotional rootedness amongst Singaporeans that ties them together. Although Singapore is a small country, our reputation is excellent in the world, and this gives pride to all Singaporeans, wherever they may be. The Singapore passport, for example, is highly valuable, even valued by foreigners, because they see this as a reputable country, safe, secure and well-run, and, therefore, foreigners covet our Singapore passports even to conduct illegal activities, such as trafficking in people.

As regards National Service, I think Mr Chia must not undermine the contributions made by our National Servicemen. They have made a sacrifice. They contribute to Singapore and we must recognise what they have done that have ensured our sovereignty.

The Chairman: Order. I propose to take the 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 3.10 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.38 pm until 3.10 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.10 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head P (cont.) -

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, the matter I want to raise relates to the Traffic Police. We heard earlier today that the Minister for Home Affairs has explained that the resources of the Home Team are strained because of their twin purposes of looking after security and crime busting.

Traffic Police has always stood out, not like a sore thumb, but by itself, because the control of traffic is usually rather different, and police officers trained in traffic control really do not need other types of training, eg, crime busting and so on, because it is a totally different activity altogether. In 1998, I raised the same issue in the Budget debate, and I asked the question whether Traffic Police should be in another Ministry, ie, the Ministry of Transport now, or under the LTA. I should like to know whether there has been any rethinking on this issue, and whether the Home Team can now devote itself to the needs of security as well as crime busting.

The Chairman: Mr Charles Chong is not here. Mr Chandra Mohan.

Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair: Sir, may I be permitted to take the three items together?

The Chairman: Yes, please do.

Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair: Sir, the Societies Act governs the registration of societies and associations. There are about 5,500 registered societies in Singapore, including civil and non-governmental organisations, sports and recreation clubs, members' clubs, welfare and religious organisations, etc. The members and participants are mainly Singaporeans doing voluntary work on various aspects of life in Singapore. The Constitution of Singapore, under Article 14, provides for the freedom of speech, assembly and association. If I could just quote, it says in Article 14:

"Subject to clauses (2) and (3) -

(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and

(c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations."

And there are some restrictions to that under Article 14(2) and (3), especially on the full licence of freedom in terms of what needs to be done in order to protect the security of Singapore, public order or morality.

Many in Singapore do complain that there are many restrictions imposed by the Government although there are fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of Singapore. If there are too many restrictions or exceptions which affect Article 14 of the Constitution, then the citizens may be justified in complaining that their fundamental rights have been curtailed.

I would like to ask whether the Ministry would consider taking steps or initiatives - and I hope they would - to organise a forum, seminar or even a closed-door session to review the Societies Act and related statutes and rules and regulations, together with interested parties, such as registered societies, especially civic and non-governmental organisations, to see what needs to be done so that there is a more active and vibrant civil society, and greater voluntary activities in Singapore. We ought to tap the great reservoir of energy of voluntarism from them, and I hope we will certainly want to do this.

Could the role of the Registrar of Societies also be expanded to task him with creating a greater level of participation on such matters? There needs to be a rethinking on this. I would like to ask what are the duties and roles of the Registrar currently, and what can be done in order to vest him with greater powers to bring about greater interaction by the Registrar of Societies with civic organisations, so that there is greater participation by the community in governmental affairs too. How can the Registrar enhance the activities of non-governmental organisations and civic societies in Singapore as a whole? Perhaps, the Registry could also look at possibilities of financing some of the common projects that can be enhanced to bring about a greater image as a caring, people-oriented group to help the Government and the community in various projects and provide some form of meeting place for seminars, forums as most civic groups and organisations lack the facilities and finances to do so. What is the experience of other jurisidictions, as far as NGOs go and civic organisations in other countries? I think it is important to bring about a synergy of the people through these organisations with the powers that be, so that they can be given a chance to do community work and special projects as per the aims and objects found in their respective constitutions.

On the issue of public expressions and speaking rights, Sir, there have been recent developments, especially on the issue of potential US-Iraq war. We have seen a lot of peaceful demonstrations throughout the world but, in a sense, Singapore has not shown active participation in that area. Some would complain that because of the requirement for a police permit, it does curtail any form of initiation by civil groups to do such things. It may be argued that it is not necessary but, sometimes, it is important to express one's feelings, not just in newspapers, but in the form of peaceful demonstrations. Generally, Singaporeans are peaceful people. There should not be the perceived fear that there would be violence and things would go wrong. Citizens must be given the right to do these things. We have a strong police force that can easily contain, if at all, problems should arise. I would encourage the Government to be a bit more liberal about these things and certainly be more liberal about the granting of police permits, and better still, why the need for such police permits at all.

No doubt, in terms of expression, we have the Speakers' Corner. I must admit in this regard that the citizens have not responded very positively. Perhaps, this should be reviewed. Is it because of the location itself and the forms of restrictions imposed on people to speak up?

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam (Nominated Member): Thank you, Sir, for the opportunity to speak on this issue. There is right now another kind of war that is going on and has been going on for some time, and I think the sad thing about this is not many of us are even aware of it. I am referring to the trafficking of people around the world in this discussion, particularly that of women and children.

This form of trafficking is tipped to eclipse the arms and drug trade as the most lucrative aspect of this trafficking phenomenon is that of sexual exploitation of women and children. According to the United Nations' estimates, trafficking of just women and children alone right now involves about four million people a year, bringing in a record profit of US$5-7 million. Of this conservative figure, about 250,000 women and children, according to the latest International Organisation for Migration Report, come from South-east Asia. One may ask: what has all this got to do with Singapore? Plenty, I say, and allow me to express why.

Firstly, Singaporeans are a well-travelled group. We travel in the region and beyond. UN's figures for child sex tourism in Cambodia show that it is coming up to 35%, more than 5,000 young girls from Yunnan province are trafficked and serving in the brothels in Bangkok. This is a 1998/1999 figure, so it is outdated, but I could not find the latest figure. Some hotels in Bali, Philippines and Sri Lanka promote sex with children as part of their attraction and today, in each of these respective countries, 60,000-100,000 children are kept in brothels. Please note that I am not saying that Singaporeans visit these countries to partake in these activities. But what I am saying is that we cannot rule out this possibility either.

Secondly, we also have many foreign workers amongst us. Many have work permits but there is also still a group among the foreign workers who are illegals, sometimes taking on menial jobs or sometimes working here as prostitutes. Do we know how they landed here? Do we know whether they came willingly or they were duped? Do we know if they are trafficked persons? But the way to finding what are the circumstances that brought them here, we do have a little bit of a hurdle because under the Immigration Act, if they are found to be illegal, they can be either caned or sent to prison or both. However, there is still a recourse that some of them can turn into prosecution witnesses to haul in the traffickers. But what I am saying here is that the obstacle is there that we would perhaps sometimes not even know whether they are trafficked individuals.

Lastly, and more importantly, as to why Singapore is involved in this business of trafficking of people around the world, the latest report in the Sunday Times by reporter Arlina Arshad showed that Singapore men have been making a beeline for some time for the Riau Islands for the Indonesian girls. And in her story, she also said that some of them are as young as 12. A Riau Island parliamentarian whom I spoke to also confirmed that many of these girls are from villages, lured and forced to stay in brothels, and in the weekly raids that his Police force is carrying out, it is a fact that some of them have been duped into the brothel service and some of these brothels are also businesses run by Singaporeans in Batam and Bintan.

We have all joked, cynically, often, I am sure, about the weekend migration of our men to the islands of Batam and Bintan. But today, I want to be a party-pooper and say that this has to stop.

Singapore has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child whereby Articles 34 and 35 state that governments shall take all appropriate action to protect children from sexual exploitation. We have not ratified the optional protocol dealing with child prostitution yet under this Convention.

The Chairman: Ms Braema, you have to wrap up your speech soon.

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam: Okay. We have signed the Convention on the Elimination on All Forms of Discrimination Against Children whereby Article 6 allows us to suppress all forms of trafficking against women. Could I ask the Chair for a question here, please?

The Chairman: Just ask your question and resume your seat.

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam: This is a new topic. Could I just be given some extra time?

The Chairman: Just ask your question and resume your seat.

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam: All right. The question I have for the Ministry then is that, since we have signed all these documents, how can the Home Team work with the officials in Indonesia to try and curtail this situation. Is it also time for us to do what the Australians have done to try and bring our citizens a little bit more in line with our own home laws? My second question is: is it time also to review how we look at illegals because the world right now is trying to decriminalise it a little bit, having the understanding that some of them are victims of trafficking? Thirdly, we have signed different Conventions from different Ministries as part of our stand. Do these Conventions harmonise at the end of the day and, if so, what is our stand?

Lastly, in conclusion, Sir, we are living in a globalised world which means dealing with global problems. It is my hope that our men do us proud in every sense of the word and, as a Government, we cannot afford to look the other way.

The Chairman: Guillotine. Please sit down, Ms Braema.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, I join the call earlier by NMP Mr Chandra Mohan. I find it strange that we need so many permits in Singapore - permit to speak, permit to entertain, permit to march, permit to protest and even a permit to gather. It is absurd if your group has more than five people, you can be charged for illegal assembly. Many Singaporeans would be guilty of that offence.

Rules, permits and licences are mental roadblocks that restrict the growth of a creative and vibrant society. This point has been well-hammered into the minds of the Government and the civil service over the last few days by many MPs. I do not think I need to go any further since the DPM has personally pledged to cut down on the number of rules, permits and licences.

I just hope that the Home Affairs Ministry would cooperate fully by removing those unnecessary permits and laws that are archaic and no longer relevant. Stop using the standard excuse of public safety and security as the awe-inspiring reason to keep these rules and regulations. The Government can do better than giving us a standard reply. It is time to return more freedom to the citizens so that they can learn to exercise greater personal responsibility.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, first let me respond to Prof. Chin's point. His point is very specific. He has made a renewed call for Traffic Police to be merged with the Land Transport Authority.

Let me inform him that his call has not fallen on deaf ears because discussions are now underway between MHA and the Ministry of Transport and we plan to effect the transfer by the middle of this year.

As Members are aware, traffic management and control today come under two agencies, namely, LTA and the Traffic Police. This has resulted in unnecessary coordination issues. Other than the reason that if we take away Traffic Police from MHA agencies, MHA would then be able to concentrate more on law and order problems, the more positive rationale, and one which would benefit Singaporeans, will be that there will be greater synergy if this is done.

Let me cite a few examples. First, duplication of technology can be avoided. Today, LTA locates cameras at the traffic junctions and the expressways and tunnels to monitor traffic flows. Traffic Police, on the other hand, separately operates the red light and speed camera systems for surveillance against specific traffic offences. There is much potential therefore in streamlining these systems. For example, a camera system can be developed for both the monitoring of traffic at major junctions and for surveillance against red light offences. Duplication of systems can therefore be avoided, resulting in cost savings.

Second, enforcement can be streamlined. Today, Traffic Police enforces traffic violations such as speeding. On the other hand, LTA enforces illegal modifications to vehicles. However, illegal modifications also compromise road safety. So there is some overlap there. For instance, a driver who has installed tinted glass windows may find it hard to see on-coming traffic clearly and thus overtake dangerously. It is counter-productive for Traffic Police or LTA to enforce against one offence, whether it is reckless driving or illegal modification, without also having the authority to enforce the other. Such gaps only compromise safety on our roads. 3.30 pm

Thirdly, the setting of rules and the downstream enforcement of these rules. For example, as part of LTA's measures to encourage usage of public transport, it is an offence to drive in a bus lane during peak hours. However, it is Traffic Police's responsibility to process the summonses, impose demerit points and also attend to appeals for such violations. This is clearly undesirable, as the agency responsible for defining the rules should also enforce the rules to ensure consistency from policy formulation to downstream enforcement. Hence, by integrating all traffic issues under a single agency, the enlarged LTA will be able to offer better service to all road-users. LTA will then have a direct hand in influencing road-user behaviour, and strengthen its own mission of creating an excellent land transport system. MHA officials and officials from the Ministry of Transport have made good progress at the working level and we will announce specific details of the transfer when these are ready.

Let me now address Mr Chandra Mohan and Mr Steve Chia's points. Both Mr Chandra Mohan and Mr Steve Chia made a call, for example, for more opportunities for Singaporeans to speak in public. Mr Steve Chia's point is that of the number of licences and permits that must be applied for. First, I want to say this. As Mr Chandra Mohan himself has said, yes, we do have fundamental rights and liberties in the Constitution, and he has mentioned some of these. But, at the same time, the same Articles in the Constitution also set parameters - security, public order, morality. I think Mr Chandra Mohan, in his speech, also recognises that Singapore is a unique society, special in a very small country physically, compact, and we are also multi-racial, multi-religious. Therefore, working the Constitution, we have to derive positions which take into consideration and recognise the situation in Singapore. And, indeed, every country has to strike a delicate balance between these fundamental liberties on the one hand, and law and order concerns on the other. Therefore, it is not just a matter of saying why can other countries do it, why can we not do it. Because circumstances are different, eg, our historical experiences are different.

Mr Chandra Mohan asked why can we not have peaceful demonstrations. There is, in fact, contradiction in terms there, because large gatherings of people can start peaceful but can turn violent, particularly if it is on matters of race, religion or politics, where different people may have different opinions and different groups may gather, then you will have clashes. And, indeed, even in other countries with regard to this latest spate of gatherings on the possibility of a war in Iraq, some of the demonstrations have turned violent. So, I think we have to be careful there.

Hence, our position all these years has been clear. Police will not allow public talks on matters such as race, religion and politics to be given in open spaces as they may cause disaffection or elicit mock response when inflammatory speeches are given. But meetings can be held indoors or in sports stadiums where the conditions are different and there is better control, and the concerns of law and order can be better taken care of. The Police also disallows public assemblies if public order may be compromised. Likewise, the Registrar of Societies will refuse registration of groups that are prejudicial to public order or national interest.

Having said this, I think we must give credit where it is due, and this is that the Police and the Registrar of Societies exercise their discretion judiciously under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act, the Miscellaneous Offences Act and the Societies Act. Police and the Registrar of Societies administer these Acts even-handedly and with a light touch. Let me cite some figures. Over the two-year period, 2001-2002, Police approved 1,403 applications for public talks, and rejected only four such applications. In other words, a high approval rate of 99.7%. Of the four applications, three were rejected because of law and order concerns, while the remaining one was rejected because the application was made on the eve of the intended event.

Mr Chandra Mohan must surely appreciate the fact that rules have been relaxed, and I say this also to Mr Steve Chia who made that point because, over time, Police also reassesses changed conditions and where the possibility of relaxation comes in, that can be considered. For example, since September 2000, Singaporeans can speak at the Speakers' Corner without the need for a public entertainment licence. That is a major relaxation. And, indeed, recently, a political association held an installation art exhibition at the Speakers' Corner.

Mr Chandra Mohan asked how other countries handle public expressions and what the international community and media think about us. Like I have said, we have to formulate rules to fit Singapore because, basically essential and ultimately, it is the safety and security of Singaporeans that really matter and, of course, for investors and tourists who are here. Here again, I think Singapore has scored very well in terms of public safety for many years at international polls. I think we must maintain this position. In fact, other countries probably look at us and wonder how we do it. So, before we throw the baby out with the bathwater, let us have a care. And for these reasons, Singaporeans enjoy a great sense of safety and security. Of course, in terms of history also, we recall turbulent times in the past. Though those times may be many years away physically in terms of number of years, but given the make-up of our society, it can resurface if we are not careful.

Mr Chandra Mohan also asked about the Societies Act. Here again, the Societies Act has been applied with a light touch. In fact, in MHA, I have said earlier on when I answered earlier questions, we review our Acts and measures all the time to see how they can be improved. And, in the same vein, we have also looked at the Societies Act.

Rarely has the Registrar had to refuse registration. When he does, it is for very good reasons. The Registrar, in fact, cites the relevant ground of refusal provided under the Act and which clause it comes under, eg, that the society is likely to be used for unlawful purpose or for purposes prejudicial to public peace or order. So the rejected applicant will know on what basis the rejection has taken place. Between 1998 and 2001, the Registrar approved 888 applications and rejected only 7 applications. Last year, 263 applications were approved and only 3 applications, from two religious groups and a third group suspected of being involved in secret society activities, were rejected. So, indeed, the number of registered societies has grown from 5,377 in 1999 to 5,642 as at end of last year.

Moving forward and taking a pro-active stance, ROS has been experimenting since January 2002 with a fast-track registration scheme for societies that pose minimal law and order, safety and security concerns. These societies can be registered on the basis of the applicant self-declaring that the society meets certain criteria. For instance, its objects and activities must not relate to politics, religion and ethnicity, and it must not have foreign connections. These are well grounded reasons.

Now, we are considering whether and how we can allow eligible societies to be registered automatically. So, we are trying to improve all the time. I think that is something that Mr Chandra Mohan and others like him should appreciate. So, there is really no need to hold a big seminar where we take feedback from everybody, because we are always open to feedback. I myself, I am sure he would know, have also met some groups to discuss the Societies Act.

Mr Chandra Mohan suggested that the Registrar of Societies should play a bigger role in enhancing and, indeed, even in financing the activities of NGOs and civil society groups. I think he should think carefully about this call, because it is really not a wise move. Why? Because these NGOs who seek help from the Government may lose their credibility. Civil society groups must make themselves relevant and be able to engage and convince citizens to identify with their causes. It is not true that NGOs find difficulty in getting premises to hold meetings and so forth. Over the past few years, civil society in Singapore has grown, and NGOs espousing various causes have sprung up. So, I think we should leave them be. There is space for them to grow. The ROS is certainly not an instrument to clamp them down. And like I have said, from the figures and from our approach, in fact, we are pro-societies. Of course, the Registrar of Societies must have the discretion to act against societies; hence, even constitutionally, law and order and other parameters are set out.

Mr Steve Chia has talked about permits. Like I have explained just now, there is a need for us to control gatherings of large people in Singapore. Therefore, there is a need for a permit if you want to hold a large meeting in public. As shown by the figures given just now, it is not difficult to apply for a permit and, particularly, in the context of meeting rooms and sports stadiums, they have been granted before.

He asked about licences. Here again, MHA administers this matter with a light touch. For example, Police, currently, administers licences and permits under nine pieces of legislation. We have considered whether or not such pieces of legislation are necessary and we have found them to be so. Let me give you an example of the Arms and Explosives Act. There is a need to control the importation and possession of arms and explosives. I think Mr Chia will agree that we need to continue with this regime. Likewise, the Private Investigation and Security Agencies Act, so that anyone who wants to be a private investigator or security guard will have to be screened. So, there is every reason why a permit is required.

How about public activities, which Mr Chia has focused on? Let me say there are 15 types of public entertainment licences catering to entertainment businesses and to those who wish to organise ad hoc public entertainment. These licences are, for example, for performance of public talks and for operating billiard saloons and games machines. If Mr Chia sits back and thinks about it, there is every reason why we should require these licences, not that they are not granted. When the conditions are met, they are granted. For example, control over computer games arcades and pubs are required, so that on application, Police can look at it and see whether, eg, they are in residential areas, too near to HDB areas, thus posing social concerns and possibly too accessible to the young people. Or, for example, whether or not large outdoor entertainment events could be held at a certain place, it is necessary to consider whether or not there will be disamenity caused to the residents, traffic problems or law and order problems.

I am sure he will appreciate that, over the years, he would have seen MHA assess the relevancy of licences and, where possible, we have done away with some of these licences. I am not sure whether he was in the House in the year 2000, when I moved a Bill to amend the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act. Part of the scheme of the Bill was to introduce an exemption scheme where certain activities were exempted under class exemption. Hence, under this amendment to the Act, we exempted 10 categories of activities. And, indeed, the Speakers' Corner also arose from this exemption. People who speak at the Speakers' Corner will not need to apply for a licence. 3.45 pm

In July last year, Police implemented a one-stop public entertainment licensing centre (or OSPEC). I think Mr Chia is also aware of that, particularly in helping people who want to start entertainment activities, pubs, for example. So OSPEC, in fact, as a one-step centre, has helped to bring down processing time to two weeks. That was about a year-and-a-half ago. Of course, like I have said, in MHA, we always see whether we can improve our processes. So, here, Police is currently looking at computerising its licensing operations. When the system "PLUS" is ready later this year, we can expect the processing time to be further reduced to seven working days for establishment licence applications.

Let me assure both Mr Chandra and Mr Steve Chia that when licences or permits are imposed, they are for good reasons. If they are no longer necessary, we will modify them or, in some cases, even remove them, and this is an on-going process.

Ms Braema Mathi has made several points which are not quite in line with her topic, because she made quite diverse points, for example, whether or not we can act against brothel owners in Bintan and Batam. I am sure she appreciates that Bintan and Batam are out of Singapore's criminal jurisdiction. Certainly, in terms of what our Police can do, we cannot do anything. What, of course, we can do is we can discourage our men from going to visit these places. I think, here, families can play a part.

The other point is whether or not those who come to Singapore are being trafficked. Yes, indeed, many illegals come to Singapore; others overstay. But those illegals who come to Singapore, they come on their own or some of them are smuggled in. But that is not the same as trafficking, because trafficking means that you are brought in against your will. In the case of foreigners who enter Singapore illegally, they all come voluntarily looking for a better life. Some are smuggled in. As far as Singapore is concerned, I think she knows that we take a very tough position against all illegals who come, as well as smugglers or conveyors, as they are called. For example, last year, about 50 of such conveyors were arrested by us. We have, in fact, tough laws, particularly against such smugglers.

As for conventions, I think, again, this is a very specific point. Really, different conventions come under different Ministries. I think the conventions she has mentioned relating to the children are under the purview of MCDS. If she wants to ask a specific question, she should file a Question.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr Chia, a short clarification

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, first, I would like to thank the Ministry for the efficiency and speed of approval. The two clarifications I want to make are these. Where the gathering is five or more people, do we need to apply for a permit? Because under the law, it is considered illegal assembly. The second question pertains to this. When we are talking and meeting residents at coffeeshops, and where some topics become interesting, you can get a crowd around you and the crowd size can actually increase to quite large, and in this case, while we are addressing and talking to them, do we need to apply for a speaking permit, in a sense?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: On Mr Chia's first point, if somebody is organising a gathering for purposes as follows: to demonstrate support for or against a particular view, to publicise a cause or to commemorate or mark an event, then it comes under the Miscellaneous Offences Rules, and he will have to apply for a permit. The second point is if people gather in coffeeshops, it is not an unlawful assembly, unless the people have got criminal intent and, indeed, go on to commit an offence. Because, then, the unlawful assembly provision in the Penal Code comes in. So, that is different. That is another provision altogether. But if people gather to watch a football game on TV, say, in the S-League - Woodlands Wellington against Home United - the law will not come after them.

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam: Could I ask for clarification, please? We have ratified the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime in 1966. Right now, we have the document for 2000. The question I asked was: how do we harmonise all the different conventions because they sometimes seem to be pulling in different directions?

The Chairman: Prof. Ho, do you want to clarify?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I do not know how that has anything to do with Home Affairs.

The Chairman: Okay. Prof. Chin, do you want to withdraw your amendment?

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, may I thank the Minister, the Senior Minister of State and the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for their very comprehensive and occasionally surprising answers.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (2). Mr Charles Chong is not here, so the item is not moved. Item No. (3), Dr Maliki.

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, the drug menace has been with us for a very long time. We have been grappling with the problem of high relapse rate. At one time, it was as high as 80%. Recently, it hovered over 60%. This is still high, as one out of every six addicts returned to their drug habits. One of the programmes implemented to deal with the drug addiction is the Community-based Rehabilitation (CBR) Programme The ex-addicts are either home-based but tagged electronically or they go through further rehabilitation at the half-way houses. The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs has earlier reported that the completion rate for the half-way houses is 98%. While many complete the programme, I wonder how many have relapsed. As such, I would like to ask the Minister what is the relapse rate for addicts who have undergone the CBR programme since it was implemented. What other plans and programmes are there in our efforts at reducing the relapse rate amongst the drug addicts?

Sir, the half-way house concept is essentially that it is the half-way mark for ex-drug addicts as they move from the institution back home into the arms of society. When we talk about the Community-based Rehabilitation Programme, the assumption is that we are rehabilitating the ex-addicts in the community. But herein lies the problem. Is the community also being rehabilitated into accepting these ex-addicts? I have discussed the issue of employment and how the stigma of being an addict affects their potential at seeking employment.

Sir, not too long ago, in fact, just January this year, we saw how a neighbourhood reacted to the presence of the shelter for ex-addicts called "The Promised Land Missions". They were asked to leave because they violated some URA regulations. Some in the neighbourhood expressed relief at the group's departure. But I am glad that there are some others, like Mrs Lisha Holland who countered and remarked, "Some of the men look a little bit rough with their tattoos on their arms. But if you take time to get to know them, you'll find that they are nice people." Another neighbour, Mdm Ng Chwee Kim, also wrote and supported that point.

Sir, we need more people like Mrs Lisha Holland and Mrs Ng in our midst, people who would not judge others easily, people who are willing to give second chances. In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry has plans to implement programmes that will assist the community and the public in understanding these ex-addicts better and thereby facilitate the acceptance of these individuals. If not, I urge the Ministry to consider implementing such programmes. Such acceptance will go a long way in our efforts at rehabilitating these addicts and reintegrating them back into society and, in the same breath, make our society more compassionate.

Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M: Dr Maliki has asked about the effectiveness of our Community-based Rehabilitation (CBR) Programme. Sir, this programme was launched sometime in 1995 and it was aimed at reintegrating drug offenders detained in our DRCs back into the community. Inmates who are assessed to be receptive towards the programme are emplaced either at their own homes or at half-way houses at the end of their detention. Inmates emplaced at home are employed during the day and must observe curfew hours in the evening, while those in the half-way houses will attend various rehabilitative programmes arranged by the half-way houses. So far, about 6,000 inmates have benefited from this programme.

Sir, the results of the CBR programme have been encouraging. The completion rate for all the cohorts emplaced on the programme from 1995 to 2000 has averaged about 82%. The recidivism rate of inmates who have undergone the programme has also been consistently lower than those who have not. For example, among the cohort of drug offenders released in the year 2000, the recidivism rate for those who underwent the CBR programme was 38%, compared to about 60% of those who did not.

I would like to assure Members that other inmates in the DRCs who may not be suitable for the CBR programme are not forgotten. They undergo other programmes within the centre, for example, substance abuse treatment, anger management and violence prevention courses. The rehabilitation effort, however, does not end with the completion of the CBR programme or the release of the inmate from our DRC. Programmes are also put in place to help the drug offender reintegrate into our society. And these include aftercare counselling and assistance offered by the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprise (SCORE) and the agencies participating in the Community Action for the Rehabilitation of Ex-offenders (CARE) network.

Sir, the successful rehabilitation of drug offenders, as rightly mentioned by the Member, requires the support and cooperation of the agencies, the families and friends of the drug offenders as well as society at large. As he has explained, in some incidents where they were not clearly welcomed by some residents, I would like to take this opportunity to once again exhort all concerned to help our ex-offenders successfully reintegrate into society and to continue to lead a useful life.

With regard to educating our people, Sir, the CNB has its own preventive education programme reaching out to students in various schools, and I think SANA also has its own programme to educate the community. The other programme which I mentioned earlier is CARE. Under CARE, the various agencies believe that some kind of coordinated aftercare programme is very good in our effort to bring the ex-offenders or drug addicts back to society. These programmes, coordinated by the Prisons Department, involving SCORE, National Council of Social Service, Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association, and others, are actually a network designed to provide this assistance. They wanted a lot more people to be involved and to participate in a collective effort to help ex-offenders to come back to society. I hope we can use this opportunity to let more people understand how the CARE network can help. Various organisations and community leaders, MPs and others can also assist by way of encouraging our people to participate, to be more aware and involved.

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the response. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,834,716,870 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $480,156,000 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head N -

The Chairman: Head N - Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Dr Ong.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, Southeast Asia's short-term outlook remains uncertain. Besides the periodic haze, we have to live with dark clouds hovering over our region. The region has indeed not recovered from the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Close on its heels came the disaster of 9/11 in 2001. Prospects of a double-dip in the US economy and its impact on the region worry many of us. With the decline in direct oil investments in Southeast Asia, coupled with much investments being diverted or channelled to China, ASEAN has indeed lost its shine.

[Mdm Deputy Speaker (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua) in the Chair]

4.00 pm

Dr Ong Chit Chung: ASEAN seems to be in disarray in the post-Suharto era and appears unable to find new directions and new cohesion. Will ASEAN put its acts together and be a force to be reckoned with? The rising religious fervour and political extremism in some countries cast doubts on the stability of the region and its ability to move on with economic development. The fallout from the October 2002 bomb blast in Bali has worsened the economic prospects in the region by driving away tourists and shaking foreign investors' confidence in the region.

Now, at the beginning of 2003, war may break out over Iraq, and North Korea is playing with fire, with President Kim embarking on brinkmanship. This is indeed a topsy-turvy world. There seems to be no good news or good stories to tell of the region.

However, there are silver linings in the dark clouds. I believe that the Southeast Asian nations can emerge stronger economically and politically, if we focus on the problems and set our minds to deal with them. We can, for example, leverage on the Japan-Singapore Economic Agreement for a New Age Partnership (JSEPA) and the proposed China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement. We can see that PRC, Japan and the United States of America, the three big powers, are renewing their interests in Southeast Asia again.

More recently, there are signs that the US is broadening its interest to encompass stronger economic relations with Southeast Asia. Singapore, among other countries in the region, continues to have vital national interests and supporting long-term US strategic engagement in Asia and in helping to prevent the stabilising strategic competition among the major regional powers.

Next year will be the year of big political changes in the region. There will be elections due in many countries. It will be a watershed year. Various governments and opposition groups in Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia will be gearing up and shifting into "campaign mode".

The rise of China is the most important long-term trend in the region. As China grows, Taiwan remains the other potential flashpoint in the Asia Pacific. The state of US-China relation will also be an important factor for regional stability.

Meanwhile, China is responding to increasing ASEAN concerns that it is an economic challenge to the region. To mitigate this fear, Beijing agreed on a framework for negotiating the world's largest free trade agreement. And after several years of stalemate, China and ASEAN also agreed on a code of conduct on the South China Sea. In short, there are still some silver linings among the dark clouds surrounding the region.

In this situation, therefore, I wish to ask the Minister what is his reading of the prospects for the region. Are we able to continue to have a balance of power in the region, with the big powers in place, but not overwhelming or overbearing in influence? What positive roles can Singapore play in the region, despite our small size?

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Madam, the impending war in and on Iraq will have a tremendous effect all over the world. Many analysts have argued that the length of the war will determine the extent of its effects. The Iraqi crisis is indeed a serious acid test to world peace. It is even challenging the integrity of the United Nations.

Madam, in today's Today, Derrick Paulo analyses the lack of discourse on Iraq in Singapore. Anecdotally, we have heard many Singaporeans from all backgrounds, they are concerned with the impending war. Like many all over the world, I am sure we agree that war must be the last resort. The issue of Iraq provides an excellent opportunity for Singaporeans to understand the complexity of international relations and Singapore's position in such a complex world. As a small country, there are factors that have to be taken into consideration each time Singapore is challenged to make a decision on international matters. The Iraq issue is not only a challenge to Singapore, but to the world over.

Madam, I have two questions in relation to this issue. One, I would like to ask the Minister to share with the House the principles that guide Singapore's decision-making process in dealing with such complex and critical international issues. Can he cite some previous examples on decisions that Singapore has made on the United Nations based on such principles, especially with regard to issues in the Middle East? How is Singapore being viewed by the world community based on the principles we hold and the decisions we made in such international matters? Next, since the war in Iraq is imminent and should it take place, what are the plans that we have in being part of the United Nations' effort in rebuilding post-war Iraq?

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Madam, war clouds are looming over Iraq. There are rumours of war. Singaporeans must be mentally prepared for the potential political and economic fallout on our region in the event of war in Iraq. If war breaks out, we can only hope that it would be a short one. Singaporeans must also brace ourselves of potential terrorist backlash in the region. Recently, there was a deadly bomb blast in Davao, Philippines. The remnants of Al Qaeda and JI may seize the war in Iraq to target against US and other countries.

More importantly, Singaporeans must not be swept along by the political and religious sentiment about a possible American attack against Iraq. The drums of war are beating. But Singaporeans must keep a clear head and a brave heart and stand united. We must respond as Singaporeans. We must think and act according to our national interests.

In difficult times, Singaporeans must have the opportunity to rally together as a nation, and must not be swayed by events beyond our shores, over which we have no control. We must not be polarised by the war in Iraq or by the terrorist backlash. After all, all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language and religion, are in the same boat.

We already have enough challenges within. We have to address the problems faced by retrenched workers and create jobs for new graduates and other school leavers. We must therefore work together for the well-being of Singaporeans and Singapore.

I wish to ask the Minister what will be the impact of impending war against Iraq on Singapore and the region. What is Singapore's stand on this issue? Some think that Singapore is too pro-United States of America. Is this true? I think not. What is the likelihood of the second resolution being passed at the UN Security Council? What if war broke out without a second UN resolution?

Mr Sin Boon Ann: Madam, I think none of us here is naive enough to believe that there will be a 15-0 Security Council vote in favour of military action against Iraq. Every day brings new revelations and new alignments. Singapore has said that it hoped that US would act according to UN resolutions. It has also signalled to Iraq to comply with these resolutions. Now, it looks like both sides are quite prepared to go it alone.

As things stand now, the US has made it clear that it will go ahead with its own battle against Saddam, whether or not the UN is with them. At the same time, Iraq continues its dangerous cat and mouse game with the arms inspectors. My question to the Minister is this: if the US decides to strike out on its own, what will Singapore's response be?

We have long been allies with the US. To speak against any unilateral action by the US and turn our backs would make us fair weather friends with the US. At the same time, Singapore relies on the UN to secure its position and to ensure its survival as a nation state. We have always advocated the need to comply with and to act in accordance with the decisions of the United Nations. If the US were to unilaterally act without the sanction of the UN Security Council, we would be caught in a conundrum. Should we break the rule and support the US instead?

More importantly, although the US has repeatedly said that it is fighting this war against terrorism, it has had to do a lot of work on home ground to make sure that it does not risk a Muslim uprising in its own country. Singapore is in a predominantly Muslim region. To stand with the US against the wishes of the UN Security Council may mean that we run the risk of alienating our neighbours, no matter how many clarifications we may make. We also run the risk of making ourselves unpopular with our own Muslim population, if we do not manage emotions carefully.

Sir, when this war starts, if it does, it can be short and intense or long and bloody. But whichever way it turns, as leaders of a multi-religious country, we have our work cut out for us. Over the past year, we have seen how fragile our national bonds are, against the primordial calls of religion, faith and language. I would like to ask the Minister how else have we prepared our people now for whatever that lies ahead of us in relation to this Iraqi crisis.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Despite all the flurry in the UN, it seems clear that US President George Bush has decided to go to war against Iraq, with or without UN sanction, and that the war will be waged soon.

Iraq is clearly seen by the Bush administration as a premier source of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups in the future. And although it poses no imminent threat to the US, the US is determined to disarm Iraq to prevent it from becoming one. What does our Foreign Minister make of the new doctrine of pre-emptive strike - one which says that if you think a country that does not like you is going to attack you one day, then you have a legal and legitimate right to attack them now? Is this a legal and legitimate right of the US? If so, then is it not also legal for Saddam to launch a pre-emptive strike to pre-empt the US' pre-emptive strike, if it is able to do so?

Madam, we all have contempt for Saddam Hussein; we abhor his brutality. He has attacked four countries. He has used chemical weapons against his own people. He has refused to abide by the Security Council's demands that he disarm. The idea that ridding Saddam would help to nurture a more progressive Iraq that could spur reform across the Arab-Muslim world is seductive. But none of us relish the prospect of innocent lives being lost in the war. None of us will welcome the potential damage to Muslim opinion, especially in this region, or the blow to the international coalition against terrorism. None of us would like to be put in the position to have to choose between following the international community and the UN on the one hand, or the US on the other. There can be serious consequences if the war were to go ahead without UN sanction: instability across the Middle East, an end to hope for the Palestinians, a boost for terrorism, Europe divided, an outraged Southeast Asia, and a weakened UN. 4.15 pm

Clearly, our stand on this critical issue would have to be based on principle and on our national interest, and not on mere expediency or on who our friends are. The challenge to us lies in summoning the intellectual strength to think independently for ourselves, rather than accepting wholesale, without question, the conclusions and precepts presented and packaged elsewhere. The question we must ask ourselves is whether it is in our national interest to support a war against Iraq.

I would like to ask the Minister if he sees Iraq as a real threat to international security and order, and is it in our national interest to have a war against Iraq. Does he believe the US stand that Iraqi non-compliance with the arms inspections constitutes a "material breach" of Resolution 1441, thus allowing the US to invoke the "serious consequences" clause?

Mr Othman Haron Eusofe (Marine Parade): Madam, as Members have mentioned, war is imminent in Iraq. I join fellow Muslims and non-Muslims in prayers for a peaceful resolution on Iraq. While there is no love lost for the Iraqi President and his tyrannical and cruel regime, I fear for the loss of lives and serious injuries to the innocent, the young and old, if war breaks out. War can be averted if Iraq immediately and unequivocally declares its compliance of UN Resolution 1441 and implements action to destroy its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, including biological and chemical weapons. UN inspectors can then be given adequate time to check and verify that Iraq acts in accordance with its declaration, subject to the satisfaction of the United Nations.

War should only be fought as a last resort. My colleagues have mentioned this. We should be given time and opportunity to exhaust every avenue to achieve peaceful disarmament. However, sometimes we must be ready to go to war to win peace and stability. If Iraq continues to wilfully ignore UN resolutions after having more than adequate time to consider the serious implications of its decision, then war is the only effective solution left. But it is better that war be pursued with full UN backing. We want the United Nations Security Council to be united. A divided UN will threaten international law and order.

Madam, what would be the position if the impasse continues in the UN Security Council and the United States declares war unilaterally without UN sanction? The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has warned that such a war will be short on legitimacy and it will "violate the world body's charter". There can also be other consequences. A war without UN backing can create more problems for peace in the Middle East. It could also complicate the war against terrorism. Worse still, it could lead to increased threats of terrorism.

In this situation, how can we best safeguard Singapore's interests? We want world peace and security. We want the world economy to grow, so that our economy can also grow, providing employment opportunities and a good quality of living for all Singaporeans. We can only pursue life fully in accordance with our own traditions and beliefs if there is sustained peace and stability. Given the current political and security situation in the world, and if it takes a war regardless of how it is to be fought to get a chance for security, we must be ready for it. Our only hope then is that it will be a short and decisive war for peace and security.

Madam, I would like to ask the Minister what is Singapore's position should the US go to war against Iraq without UN sanction and, generally, what is our position on Iraq and the Middle East.

Mr Ravindran: The on-going disarmament issue which is continuing to cause a great impasse in the United Nations Security Council clearly shows that there is a weakness in the UN Security Council's proceedings and the way it makes its decisions. What is clear is that the Iraqi impasse is reaching a climax and that everyone is expecting military action sooner rather than later.

What is critical is that, being a small nation but an influential international player in the world, everybody naturally will take notice of what is Singapore's position. It will be much easier for us if the UN Security Council is able to make a decision and everybody follows the decision of the UN Security Council on Iraq. But the problem arises when the UN Security Council is unable to make a decision and the coalition of the willing goes ahead and takes military action in Iraq. The problem that arises is what is Singapore's position in this regard, if the UN Security Council is unable to make a decision. Do we become part of this coalition of the willing and, if so, what will then be our interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441?

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Madam, besides the terrorist threat, the region is now faced with the distinct possibility of an ignition of one long-standing flashpoint in the Asia Pacific region, ie, in the Korean peninsula. The recent actions of North Korea are clearly timed to take advantage of the US' pre-occupation with Iraq.

If North Korea's development of weapons of mass destruction is not stopped, it could either lead to a war or a "nuclearisation" of the whole region. Beijing, which has significant leverage over North Korea, has a big role to play in solving this North Korean problem. If China succeeds in restraining North Korea - and we certainly hope China would - its already growing political, economic and strategic weight will be further enhanced.

Recently, an aerial incident resulted when North Korean fighter planes confronted a US spy plane in the Sea of Japan. Such action is clearly provocative and dangerous. Any miscalculation might well lead to escalation and into conflict in the Korean peninsula, where tensions are already high over North Korea's decision to reactivate its nuclear reactors.

Madam, if war were to break out in the Korean peninsula, it will destabilise the region, both economically and geo-politically. The geo-political landscape will also change if Tokyo and Beijing were to beef up their military significantly in the wake of instability in the Korean peninsula.

I wish to ask the Minister what is the impact of North Korea's hard-line position and brinkmanship on South Korea, Japan, China and the US. What if war broke out over North Korea? What will be the ramifications on Singapore's economy and security?

Mr Heng Chee How: Madam, the world has to contend with a whole host of different challenges. For instance, even as a possible war in Iraq looms, other countries, such as North Korea, are reported to have become active in their nuclear programmes. Whatever might be the purposes in acting in the manner that they have, they have compounded the complexities that the international community has to deal with.

I would like to ask the Minister what is the position of Singapore vis-a-vis the nuclear stance of North Korea, and what measures are we taking, together with the international community, to safeguard our national interests in this case.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Madam, I thank the Members who have spoken. I shall first respond to Dr Ong Chit Chung, who gave his own views on the state of the world and the region, and he ended up by asking me for my reading of the prospects for the world and the region, and how we position ourselves. I would like to agree with him by saying that, yes, indeed there has been much bad news. I cannot recall any other period in recent history when we have to operate in such a fluid, unpredictable and turbulent environment.

What I will do is to give an overview of how I see our position in the region, how Singapore is positioning itself with regard to our neighbours and the major powers and then point out how we see the overall strategic landscape in which we have to operate. Members have spoken about national interests. I will state how we see our national interests which guide our policies on many foreign policy issues, including that of Iraq. Then I will respond to the specific questions on Iraq and North Korea.

Firstly, our relations with our ASEAN neighbours remain a key focus of our foreign policy. On 25th January 2003, I had already spoken at length about our relations with Malaysia. Admittedly, they are not in the best state. But both sides have brought down the temperature. Our relations with other Southeast Asian countries are excellent and strengthening.

With Indonesia, our ties are deep and broad. To demonstrate Singapore's confidence in Indonesia, Prime Minister Goh visited Jakarta last December, just two months after the Bali bombings. He was the first foreign leader to do so. It was a gesture of our consistent support for President Megawati and her government.

Prime Minister Goh also visited Thailand and Vietnam earlier this year. Many new initiatives were undertaken during these visits. President Nathan's state visits to Cambodia and Vietnam also underscored our close and warm ties with those neighbours. We will continue to make efforts to improve relations with Malaysia and, at the same time, consolidate our excellent ties with others in ASEAN and the rest of the region.

As regards our relations with other countries, beyond ASEAN, we have strong and healthy relations with all the major powers. With the United States, we concluded a FTA which is now before Congress. The US-Singapore FTA is not just important for economic growth, it also has importance strategically. It will add an important new dimension to our already strong economic, military and political ties with the United States. And the Prime Minister will visit Washington later this year.

With China, we continue to have excellent relations, and we have frequent exchanges of visits by senior leaders on both sides. President Hu Jintao visited Singapore last year before assuming the top post. The new Chinese leadership is familiar to us. The Prime Minister intends to visit China in the course of this year. As China grows, our relationship with it, of course, will assume even greater importance, and we believe that China will become an even more significant part of the regional equation. Our strong ties with Beijing are therefore, in my view, a plus.

With Japan, our relationship has been brought to a new height with the conclusion of the Japan-Singapore Economic Agreement for a New Age Partnership (JSEPA). I visited Japan last year and held very fruitful discussions with Japanese Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi on matters of mutual concern. I am glad to say that Prime Minister Goh will visit Japan in a few weeks' time. Japan is struggling to shake a decade of slow growth. But for all its problems, Japan is still the second largest economy in the world and of considerable importance to Singapore and the region. We will work closely with Tokyo to enhance our bilateral relations, as well as facilitate Japan's role in ASEAN. This year marks the 30th Anniversary of the commencement of Japan-ASEAN relations. Prime Minister Goh intends to attend a special ASEAN summit in Tokyo in December.

With India, President Nathan visited India earlier this year, and Prime Minister Goh will do so in a month's time. Our traditional ties with India are strong and we are adding to them in many ways, including the possibility of negotiating a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) with India. We share many common strategic interests and our economic relationship has assumed greater importance. We have also strongly supported the convening of the ASEAN-India Leaders' Summit. 4.30 pm

Our ties with the European countries are also strong and healthy. The Prime Minister, the two Deputy Prime Ministers, myself and other Ministers have visited most of the European countries.

As with Australia and New Zealand, we also have good relations with Australia and have just concluded an FTA with them. New Zealand is a strong and reliable friend and was our first FTA partner.

That was a very truncated account of our relations with countries in the region and the major powers. What I want to stress is this: that our relations with these countries and the stability of our region and the state of health of the region do not occur in a vacuum. We must view them in the broader strategic context and global developments. Let me briefly explain the complex global environment which we are currently operating in.

The Cold War has ended. But a decade after the end of the Cold War, it has become very clear that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the dangerous nuclear confrontation between the superpowers really have not made for a more peaceful world. Yes, we no longer have the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation between the world's super powers. But we live now in a new era, which sees us facing many different challenges, and new threats to our physical security, economic well-being and social stability.

The post-Cold War world has proved to be a messy and dangerous place. Just to name a few major developments, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the first Gulf War to restore Kuwaiti independence; the collapse of countries resulting in political and humanitarian crisis such as in Somalia and Haiti; genocidal violence in Rwanda; political turmoil, "ethnic cleansing" and ultimately, NATO interventions in the Balkans. The Middle East was and continues to be wrecked by endemic violence.

Now, if that was the state of affairs after the end of the Cold War, post 9/11, the world has become an even messier and more dangerous place. 9/11 revealed the existence of highly organised and well-financed transnational terrorist organisations of global scope, motivated by a radical and deviant interpretation of Islam, determined to bring down secular and moderate governments. These governments were predominately Muslim countries - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia. Even we in Singapore were not spared as the JI arrests have shown.

The struggle against terrorism is clearly not a struggle against Islam. But it is an unfortunate fact that it is complicated by the campaign of the terrorists to portray it as a war against Islam. They have targeted the United States and its friends because the US is the chief obstacle to their designs. The war against terrorism has also been complicated by the discomfort which many Muslims - and not just Muslims - have about United States' policies in the Middle East.

However, no one can be a bystander in this struggle. And terrorism will exist even if there is a solution to the Middle East problem. Pretending to ignore the problems will not buy greater safety.

Post 9/11, all countries, including Singapore, have had to reassess the secu- rity priorities and strategic interests. Singapore has been compelled to do so because Iraq's decade-long flouting of UN efforts to disarm it of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has assumed more threatening proportions. It now poses an unacceptable risk of proliferation. As Members will know, North Korea has taken advantage of the Iraqi crisis to push forward with its own nuclear weapons programme, creating a very dangerous situation in North Asia.

Fortunately, one paradoxical aspect of 9/11 has been to stabilise major power relations in the Asia-Pacific making for a more favourable overall strategic environment.

In particular, I refer to relations between China and the US which have become more stable. The US-China relationship is a key bilateral relationship in East Asia. If that relationship is stable, it has a calming effect in the entire region. But when China-US relations become roiled, the entire region becomes unsettled. Good China-US relations therefore are important for a stable strategic environment.

With regard to ASEAN, which Dr Ong Chit Chung asked, I would say that another interesting post 9/11 development is that China, Japan and the United States are renewing their interests in South-east Asia. So are India and Europe. Post 9/11, the major powers have also rediscovered ASEAN's importance in maintaining stability in our region and that we are assuming a greater prominence in the global anti-terrorism campaign. The major powers are now engaging ASEAN, I would say, with greater enthusiasm, than I have seen a few years ago. This is a plus for Singapore; and is a plus for the region as a whole.

Terrorism and these new challenges require national, regional and international responses. We have to structure our responses within the international system that is no longer bipolar.

And I would say that the key geo-political effect of the post-Cold War is a pre-eminence of the United States; a pre- eminence on the scale unprecedented in history and multi-dimensional in its scope; not just military but economic, financial and technological.

It is not likely that American pre-eminence can be seriously challenged by any country or combination of countries in the foreseeable future. Like it or not, it is a geo-political reality that no international issue today can be resolved without the active cooperation, or at least acquiescence, of the United States.

Now the United States is at the forefront of the war against terrorism, proliferation, and security challenge presented by Iraq and North Korea.

The sheer scale of United States' pre-eminence has, of course, provoked a degree of international discomfort, even among United States' close friends and allies in Europe, South Korea and Japan. That discomfort is seen now being focused on the Iraq issue.

What are Singapore's national interests? We have to ask this question because in the midst of these confusing and troubling times, in the midst of an international debate in which seemingly valid points are made by all sides, I think it is important, as several of the Members have pointed out, that we in Singapore understand what is Singapore's national interests. And I agree with Members, Dr Ong Chit Chung and Dr Maliki, that it is all the more important now for us not to be swayed by emotions or the fashion of the moment, but to carefully and calmly assess our national interests with a clear head. Let me set out some basic considerations.

First of all, yes, of course, the world may well be better off with a more balanced structure of international power. There is no doubt about that. But, our wishing it to be so is not going to make it happen. Would we be better off if the Cold War was still on or, worse still, if the Soviet Union had emerged triumphant? I do not think so.

Secondly, Singapore has for many years emphasised the importance of the United States in providing stability and that is the irreplaceable foundation for Asia-Pacific growth since the end of the Second World War. We have stated that position of ours even at the time when it was not fashionable or politically correct to do so. Why? Because it was in Singapore's fundamental national interests. A small country like Singapore can survive and prosper only when there is a stable balance of power. And the United States is an irreplaceable part of any regional or international balance. And it is not just statements that we have made to that effect but, within our limited means, we have done what we could to provide access to our facilities to enable the United States to maintain its presence in our region. And we did that, again, because it was in our national interest to do so.

Thirdly, terrorism is a threat to Singapore as it is to all civilised countries. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a particular threat to a small country like Singapore where a single chemical or biological attack will have a catastrophic effect on an entire nation. A nuclear attack would also mean the physical end of Singapore. And this is not something theoretical or far-fetched - only two days ago, Mr Mohamad El Baradei said on BBC addressing a conference of the IAEA where he warned of the reports of terrorist plans to build and deploy radiological dispersion devices, and he said, given the inadequacies of source control, it is clear that additional security measures are urgently needed. So if action is not taken against Iraq or other countries who possess illegal weapons of mass destruction, what will be the implications internationally? This is a question that everyone must ask in Singapore. Supposing, after all that has been said and done, in the end, Iraq is not disarmed, what signal would this send to extremist groups across the world? After all, after 9/11, in other words, the issue of weapons of mass destruction proliferation has taken on an entirely new and even more threatening dimension.

North Korea has already taken advantage of the international pre-occupation with Iraq to push forward with its own nuclear weapons programme. Singapore has expressed its deep concern over North Korea's actions and called upon it to reconsider its actions. I will come back when I answer the specific questions later on on North Korea.

Let me assure Members that Singapore will not flinch from doing what is necessary to advance our national interests. But we will assess each situation carefully in the light of our own interest, make our decisions based on the facts and our calculations of the long-term national interest and good of Singapore. We will not hesitate to state our own views, even if it means disagreeing with other countries, whether they are a major power or not. And indeed, we have had occasions to do so. But it is in Singapore's overall interest to maintain the best possible relations we can, not just with the US, but with all the major powers.

Members, I hope, will trust that the Government will always adopt a foreign policy based on the fundamental principles which I had just elaborated. We have earned a reputation internationally as a principled and fair country. That reputation was reaffirmed during our term as a Security Council member in the last two years.

Having made those comments on the strategic overview and having stated the key national interests considerations, let me now respond to Members who have asked about our position in Iraq.

The essence of our position, which has been stated publicly on many occasions can be summed up as follows:

First, the onus is on Iraq to disarm and it is imperative that Iraq disarms immediately and comply with all United Nations Security Council Resolutions. 4.45 pm

Second, we have insisted on this because of the need for all UN members to scrupulously comply with UN Resolutions, and also because of the grave threat to international peace and security caused by the development and spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Let me stress that this is not a new position. Our position predates the present diplomatic standoff in the UN. It is a position we have consistently articulated in the United Nations. In fact, our position dates back many years to the Gulf War, when we joined the international community then in condemning Iraq's aggression against Kuwait as totally unacceptable under international law and the United Nations Charter.

To put matters in context, the current crisis actually stems from some important outstanding issues since the end of the Gulf War. And I think it is important to put matters in context, because we often get the wrong picture when there is talk about a "second" Resolution of the Security Council. In fact this resolution would have been the 18th of the Security Council on Iraq's non-compliance, and the most critical of these outstanding issues is the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

That critical aspect was central to the post-Gulf War ceasefire settlement reached between the coalition forces and Iraq, and is set out in UNSC Resolution 687 of April 1991. In other words, to put matters in context, we have to go back to 1991. In the Security Council last year (October 2002), when we were a Member of the Security Council, we made a statement and we said:

"Regrettably, Iraq has not complied with many of the terms of Resolution 687, even though eleven and half years have passed."

In other words, it is not just Resolution 1441 that we are talking about. Iraq has had a deplorable record of complying with UNSC Resolutions. Next, I want to say that the United Nations Security Council unanimously decided last year in November 2002 on Resolution 1441 that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including Resolution 687 (1991)." and decided "to give a final opportunity" to Iraq to comply and Iraq was warned that "it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations".

As I mentioned just now, we have to take a strong stand on the threat posed by WMD, particularly after 9/11 because the danger of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists, terrorist organisations or extremist groups, as I said, is not a hypothetical risk. In fact, as Members who have read on this subject know, Saddam Hussein actually used biological and chemical weapons against his own people and the people of Iran.

The current intense diplomatic efforts show that the Iraq issue is a very complex one which necessitates the balancing of several different considerations and, unfortunately, not all of them fit neatly together. The United States is facing a difficult time in the Security Council. There have been global anti-war protests. No one in this Chamber or outside this Chamber likes war. But let us be clear about the facts and the equities of the case. And if you look at the facts of the case, it is very clear to us that it is Iraq, not the US and not the UN, not the international community, which is in the dock. The onus is on Iraq and if the consequences ensue where there is a use of force, it must be because of Iraq's failure to comply.

Like many other countries, Singapore also favours that there be a second United Nations Security Council resolution. And we have called for a UN resolution; we have advocated the Council's unity, a point made by Mr Othman Haron. I do not want to speculate on the likelihood of a second resolution being passed. As somebody mentioned just now, things are changing day by day, hour to hour and your guess is as good as mine. The Security Council members, according to the latest e-mail I received from our Ambassador, are still intensely deliberating over the issue.

However, what I would like to say here in response to Mr Sin Boon Ann is that even if there is no second resolution, it does not automatically follow that action against Iraq is taken outside international law or United Nations Security Council authorisation. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 has clearly pronounced that Iraq has been in material breach of Security Council resolutions for more than 12 years; from UNSC Resolution 678 of 1990 right up to Resolution 1441 last year. Singapore has said so at the UN.

The effects of the war? Of course, any war in Iraq, with or without a second UNSC Resolution, will have a negative impact on the world and in our region. It will result in loss of lives; it will result in destruction of properties; it will affect investment sentiments, may push up oil prices; and will leave a deep scar surely on those directly involved in the war for a long time. And I think it will also be exploited by extremists and terrorists for their own purposes. We must have no illusions on the effects of such a war.

To sum up, Singapore has taken a consistent position on Iraq since Resolution 678 in 1990 and Resolution 687 in 1991. Our understanding of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted by consensus when we were in the Security Council, was that it found Iraq in material breach of UN Security Council resolutions. It was intended as a final chance for Iraq and would have serious consequences if Iraq did not comply.

Iraq's possession of illegal WMD is, post 9/11, an unacceptable threat. If Iraq gets away without disarming, it will send a very bad signal to extremist groups across the world. The fact that the Security Council cannot reach consensus on a second resolution cannot be taken as an excuse for inaction.

At the end of the day, our key consideration must be our national interest. The UN can only operate within a stable international environment and it is that stable environment that Iraq's WMD threatens. Hence, it is in our fundamental national interest to see Iraq disarmed. This is necessary to send the right signal to extremists and other states like North Korea that are trying to develop WMD, as well as to signal to non-state players, like terrorists and extremist groups whose threat to the world will be enhanced if they get their hands on WMD.

Dr Ong Chit Chung asked whether our stand on Iraq makes us too pro-United States. Some Members told me this point has also arisen in their dialogue sessions with their constituents. Perhaps I should address this issue.

We are not pro-US; we are not anti-any country. What then are we? We are being pro-Singapore. By that I mean that when we take positions, we do so to advance Singapore's national interests. Yes, we strongly advocated United States' continued presence and engagement in this region. Yes, we have excellent bilateral relations with the United States. But that does not mean that we are subservient to the United States or that we agree with everything that the United States does, or says, or requests, without regard to our own national interests.

Those older colleagues of mine in this House need not be reminded in this regard of the Michael Fay incident, where on a matter concerning law and order, we stood for our right to enforce our laws despite immense pressure from the US. There have been many other instances over the years where our positions have differed from the United States, and where we could not go along with their requests.

Let me just give one example and this might also answer Dr Maliki's question on whether I can give examples where our positions are based on principles, how we are viewed and so on. And the example I will take is the Palestinian issue which was, and is, still a very, very heated and sensitive issue in the United Nations.

On the Palestinian issue, we have supported action and decisions that could advance the prospects for peace, and we have tried to play a moderating role wherever possible. In March 2001, the United States vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that would call for an international observer force to be sent to help restore peace in the Palestinian Occupied Territories. However, although the United States was opposed to this and urged us not to support it, Singapore co-sponsored and voted for that draft resolution, because we felt that the proposal to send an impartial and neutral international presence had merits and had wide support in the UN as one way to stabilise the situation in the occupied territories. And in the first half of 2002 when we were in the Security Council, we were also closely involved in several initiatives to get Israel to comply with Security Council resolutions and we supported calls for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from West Bank towns, including Ramallah.

In fact, our voting records in the UN on the Palestinian issue are very different from the United States. Records published and circulated by the Palestinian Authority show that Singapore has voted in support of all the key 17 United Nations resolutions on the Palestinian issue. On this issue also, we are not pro or anti any side; we have maintained a principled stand; we have maintained a constructive stand. We have said that the countries in the region must recognise the right of Israel to exist within secure borders, and that we have also said that we must also recognise the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland of their own.

And finally, a quick response on North Korea. I said "quick" because our position on WMD, the risk of proliferation and the linkage with terrorism, also shaped our position on North Korea. And we are concerned also for what it portends for the stability of North East Asia and for Asia. Therefore, we expressed our concerns on North Korea's decision to reactivate its nuclear programme, to cease cooperation with the IAEA and to withdraw from NPT. We have said publicly that North Korea's decision has grave repercussions on the Korean Peninsula and for the international non-proliferation regime. We have issued statements to express our concerns. We have urged North Korea to reconsider its decision. It is a retrograde steps that undermines KEDO (Korean Peninsula Development Organisation) and raises tensions on the Korean Peninsula, which complicates the Asia Pacific's security situation as a whole. North Korea's recent missile tests have further aggravated the situation. 5.00 pm

So, it is not in the interest of Singapore and other countries to see tensions on the Korean Peninsula. If the current tensions escalate further, it could destabilise the strategic balance in the Asia-Pacific region, and possibly trigger a regional arms race. We have encouraged all interested parties, including United States, South Korea and Japan, China, Russia and North Korea to continue their dialogue in order to restore stability in the Korean Peninsula.

The Chairman: One quick clarification, Mr Sin.

Mr Sin Boon Ann: Will the Minister please clarify whether the past resolutions of the UN Security Council on Iraq specifically allow the US to take unilateral action in the event of non-compliance by Iraq on these resolutions? Secondly, as a matter of international law, would it be right for the US to take such unilateral action without the specific sanction of the UN?

Prof. Jayakumar: Madam, if the Member is interested, I could send him a copy of Resolution 1441. But, as I said, it is not just Resolution 1441. We have to view the whole series of resolutions. And that is why, to view matters in context, the debate clearly ought not to be viewed as a "second" UN resolution but as what the UN resolutions had authorised over a period of time. And as I said, Resolution 1441 has made it very clear, it has found unanimously, the Security Council has found that Iraq has been in material breach of obligations. "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions. ."

Now, we can have a very fine debate on international law, UN Charter. Somebody mentioned Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General. Singapore and I have great respect for him. But I think these issues will be debated for a very long time and the key point I want to emphasise is that, while this debate goes on, the issue is: if there is a paralysis in the decision-making of the UN Security Council, its international order, other interests of peace-loving countries who are concerned with WMD terrorists, are these served by inaction as a result of a paralysis, or they are served by ensuring that Iraq disarms? That is the dilemma. So, we can have this fine international debate, I would have to meet with the international lawyers in the Attorney-General's Chambers ...it can go on. This debate has already begun. You have read both sides of it but I would say that an argument has also been made - a very strong argument has also been made - that the legal basis for any military action may be drawn from the framework of all the UN Security Council's resolutions. As I have said, while we can split fine legal hairs, the key policy dilemma, the key law and order dilemma for the world and for us is, if war breaks out, who has been responsible for it? In our view, it is because of the failure of Iraq to disarm promptly and effectively.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Madam, ASEAN was established with goodwill and had many good years of unprecedented economic growth. There was internal cohesion and collective strength. However, with the exit of President Suharto and the Asian economic crisis, many think that ASEAN has lost its direction and momentum. Internal dissension and rivalry have surfaced. One wonders whether some ASEAN states can settle their differences and come to terms with each other. There is now tiredness about ASEAN. Attention and direct foreign investments have now shifted to China.

My question for the Minister is: has ASEAN expanded too fast and too soon in terms of membership? Has ASEAN eaten more than it can chew or digest? I would like to ask the Minister what role can ASEAN play in the future and whether there are measures to strengthen ASEAN.

Further, can we upgrade or strengthen the ASEAN Regional Forum so that it will not merely be a talk shop but also a platform for confidence building and preventive diplomacy?

Mr Sin Boon Ann: Madam, there was a time when ASEAN was a regional grouping much envied by many for its ability to demonstrate its cohesiveness and unity in collectively dealing with the world. Its success as a political organisation even inspired many to suggest that ASEAN should move to the next level to become an economic union to tap on its huge market potential of half a billion people. Many had held the hope that ASEAN could rival China as the next economic powerhouse.

During the sixties and the seventies, ASEAN was seen as a bastion of Southeast Asia's stand against the onslaught of communism, both within and outside the region. As a consequence of the perceived common threat, the then members of ASEAN were able to rally together, despite real differences. This successful coming together to deal with common problems, particularly in international forums like the United Nations, served as a basis for Southeast Asian nations to come together. Since then, the common threat of communism has receded and, in the process, so has the rallying call for ASEAN to come together. Some would argue that not even the common threat of terrorism is able to galvanise the region to the same extent as before. In fact, the level of intra-regional cooperation that should have come about to deal with terrorism could have been better.

Today, ASEAN does not appear to have quite the same polish. Indonesia continues to struggle with its economy. Each country within the grouping seems beset with its own problems, whether it be rising nationalism or rising unemployment. The low point of ASEAN came with the sacking of the Thai embassy recently by an angry mob in Phnom Penh, with the authorities standing by and looking like they did nothing to prevent it. The question before us today is: is ASEAN still relevant?

I would say that ASEAN has been more successful as a political group than as an economic one, even if the increase in the number of members has made consensus and collective action more difficult. To get 10 to agree is certainly more difficult than getting six, bearing in mind that the 10 members are at very different stages of development and, thus, having rather different national interests.

The fact remains that cross-border economic cooperation among member countries could have made better progress. Many of the proposed projects, including AFTA, have been very slow to take off and, in any event, have yet to prove the result that we can all cheer about. The issues look set to continue. Yet, now more than ever, there is great urgency for the countries of ASEAN to all pull together in the same direction, particularly in the area of economic cooperation, as we see new economies emerging in China and India that are sucking away all potential direct investments from the region.

Unless ASEAN member countries can come together to speed up its economic cooperation and deepen its integration, ASEAN, as a regional group, could well be marginalised. I would like to ask the Minister whether the belief still exists that ASEAN is relevant and what further measures the governments in the regional grouping are taking to speed up this cooperation and integration to deal with the challenges ahead.

Dr Warren Lee: Madam, ASEAN's role and importance in the eyes of the world appear to be changing, as has been eloquently put by my fellow MPs. The vast differences that exist within ASEAN also appear to impede further progress, especially in the field of perhaps political opinion. Singapore has seconded the very able Mr Ong Keng Yong to be ASEAN's new Secretary-General. We have also continued to promote cultural and educational exchanges within ASEAN. How successful have we been so far in promoting the ideals of ASEAN and Singapore's interests within the context of ASEAN in the areas where ASEAN is still able to move? How can we ensure that ASEAN will continue to be one of the preferred baskets when major economic powers and players feel that they do not want to put all their eggs in the North Asian basket?

Deputy Prime Minister Lee in his Budget Speech has spoken of the need to deepen our economic integration with our ASEAN neighbours and make ASEAN more attractive to foreign investors. May I ask the Minister how we are progressing in the ASEAN-China and ASEAN-India FTAs, and how successful have we been in promoting tourism within ASEAN?

Mr Ravindran: Madam, in the light of what my colleagues have already asked about ASEAN, I would just come to the crux of the issue. I would just like to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs as to what really is the state of affairs in ASEAN today.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Madam, the raison d'etre of ASEAN was to build a region of stability and peace. It took a united stand against the communist threats from the northern Indo-Chinese countries. It adopted a common response during the Cambodian conflict and played an important role in isolating Vietnam at the UN. The end of the Cold War and the Cambodian settlement made possible the enlargement of the Association to include all 10 Southeast Asian countries and the establishment of the ASEAN Regional Forum.

However, ASEAN today is a pale reflection of its own self and seems almost irrelevant in tackling the severe challenges facing us today. As the Foreign Minister did say just now, the world is a messier and more dangerous place today. ASEAN took a united stand against terrorism, but even then the emphasis was on bilateral cooperation than on a concerted regional approach. And now, the Southeast Asian cooperation against the US-led war against terrorism may be undermined as leaders from the different ASEAN countries take different positions on the US-led war against Iraq, which some in the region see as anti-Islam, including some ASEAN leaders.

They will also find it increasingly hard to stand against domestic public opinion as resentment against US' unilateralist approach builds up. The peace and stability in Southeast Asia will encounter some profound challenges in the decades ahead. The core reason for this, in my view, is that the prevailing relationship of power and influence will undergo significant change. The first of this is the rise of China. The second will be the maturation of Japan into a more normal and multi-faceted player seeking to compete on more equal terms with China. And the third, but not least, is the hegemony, and like what the Foreign Minister said, the pre-eminence of the US as the power which sees the world in black and white - either you are with us or against us.

The US-China-Japan's strategic balance that has long underpinned East Asian growth and stability is a fluid one, and this has implication on the security of our region. The competition between the major powers for economic, political and strategic influence in Southeast Asia has started already and can be expected to intensify. You can see this in the FTAs that China and Japan are pursuing with ASEAN. Unfortunately, ASEAN cohesion has taken a beating in recent years. Historical tensions and rivalries within the grouping have not been addressed and resolved in a substantive way. Disputes between neighbours continue to hit the headlines such as the quarrels between Cambodia and Thailand, and between Malaysia and Singapore.

ASEAN is therefore not as well positioned as it might have been to cope with the shift in the strategic picture. What would happen is that the heightened uncertainty about the stability of the wider region will legitimise the continued modernisation of the Armed Forces. This will fuel local rivalries even more. Moreover, there will also be a significant difference among ASEAN states in the nature of the balance they seek in their relations with major powers. It is clear that ASEAN has reached a low ebb. Whether it will remain this way depends, to a great extent, on efforts by political leaders of all ASEAN countries to sustain the strategic importance of the relations for the region as a whole. This would mean that they should try to resolve whatever issues they face and not at the expense of ASEAN.

At the same time, ASEAN states must also have realistic expectations of each other. A common complaint that I hear when I visit ASEAN countries is that Singapore is not doing enough to pour money into their economies to help them. They continue to see Singapore as a selfish rich kid, which should open up its purse-strings to invest in their countries, never mind the investment risk is high, because of their social and economic problems. Such high expectations from our neighbours can fuel tensions when they feel that Singapore is not being helpful. But, Madam, Singapore too is undergoing great economic uncertainties and, as you have heard in the recent Budget debate, our own Singaporeans are also clamouring for more from the Government.

I would like to ask the Minister's views on how ASEAN can be strengthened, given the circumstances. And, at the same time, I would like to ask the Minister whether he feels that the expectations of Singapore's neighbours have moderated in these difficult times.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Madam, I too would like to join my colleagues in expressing my concerns about the state of affairs in ASEAN and its future.

Over the past few years, ASEAN has been perceived by many as an organisation that appears to have lost some of its earlier momentum and directions. 5.15 pm

Prior to the Asian financial crisis, ASEAN had been an organisation that allowed its members much political and social contact and played a pivotal role in forging regional cooperation. Many of ASEAN's economies were regarded as amongst the most dynamic in the world and full of promise. The ability of its member states to engage in dialogue, consultation and confidence building in a peaceful and amicable manner was seen as its most positive point. Its efforts to lay the foundation for regional economic cooperation offered much hope for its 500 million people.

However, the economic crisis that engulfed the region following the onset of the Asian financial crisis in 1997 changed all that. ASEAN's inability to come up with a coordinated or concerted response to tackle the crisis only served to show its weakness at a time of great crisis. Instead of working out a unified course of action, many ASEAN member countries went about their own way in dealing with the crisis. Indonesia and Thailand, for example, turned to IMF, and Malaysia instituted its own capital controls as the way of dealing with the financial crisis. Now this had the effect of reducing the region's appeal to outsiders, particularly, coming at a time when China was becoming more and more attractive to foreign investors.

Even the much touted ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) was met with some scepticism. While intra-ASEAN trade has increased, there remains significant bugbears like Malaysia's refusal to bring down tariffs on imported vehicles for a few more years and the Philippines' reluctance to lower tariffs on petrochemicals. There has also been difficulty in drawing up procedures and standards for imports into the various countries.

To the man-in-the-street, ASEAN remains much a mystery. They do not even know what ASEAN means. Many cannot even name all the 10 member countries. To them, ASEAN is, at most, a talk shop for political leaders and some businessmen that they hear about or see in the newspapers from time to time. Many do not even bother to read articles on ASEAN. And this, to me, Madam, is a pity.

To the man-in-the-street too, ASEAN is far from being a united force. All they see is the negative side, which is reported in the newspapers, like the quarrelling neighbours, for example, the regular spats between Singapore and Malaysia and the border skirmishes between Thailand and Myanmar. A few weeks ago, when a Thai movie actress allegedly made some sensitive remarks about Angkor Wat belonging to the Thais, this led to days of riots in Phnom Penh as the Thai Embassy and Thai businesses' premises were attacked by Cambodian mobs. At a time when the whole world was worried sick as to whether war would break out in Iraq, there was this sudden danger of actually a war occurring between two member countries of ASEAN. Nobody would have imagined that the Thai airforce was already on the alert and ready to send its planes into Cambodian territory. So much for regional peace and cooperation. Fortunately, good sense has prevailed. The matter is now being resolved, to put it very diplomatically, through diplomatic channels. But this is an incident that will leave scars on relationship. And it is not helpful to ASEAN's image.

Madam, last year when I spoke on this topic, I mentioned that ASEAN was fast being lost on the radar screen of outsiders. Many perceived the member countries as simply not trusting one another enough to the extent that ASEAN was incapable of negotiating collective deals with outsiders. Even Rodolfo Severino, the Secretary General of ASEAN who stepped down last year, had this to say, and I quote him:

"People in the region, including those from the business sector, don't recognise their stake in the destiny and cohesion of ASEAN."

Yet, ASEAN, if properly managed again, holds so much potential for its people. ASEAN solidarity is central to its success. We need to speed up the pace of economic integration and trade liberalisation, make sure that all member states are fully committed to the success of AFTA and to pursue more intra-ASEAN trade. The possibility of a China-ASEAN free trade area excites me. According to a report I read in The Economist ---

The Chairman: Mr Tan, can you please wrap up?

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Yes. --- trade between China and ASEAN has grown three-fold in the past decade and helps us to lessen our dependence on America, Europe and Japan, countries which are anyway in the doldrums. Can you now imagine the prospects of a China-ASEAN free trade area, of a market of more than 1.7 billion people with goods moving about freely? ASEAN has been rudderless for a while. And I would like to hear the Minister's views on how Singapore can contribute to closer regional cooperation and economic integration and to show the world that ASEAN is back in business.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Madam, the only multilateral security institution in East Asia is the ASEAN Regional Forum, set up in 1994. It provided an important forum for dialogue and for confidence building between states. One critical characteristic of the ARF was that it was launched by ASEAN for the purposes of engaging and influencing the postures that the major powers adopted towards Southeast Asia.

China's participation in the ARF provided the opportunity for difficult issues, such as the dispute over the Spratlys, to be broached. In the year 2000, North Korea joined the ARF, allowing the Foreign Ministers of the US and North Korea to have a dialogue for the first time under the Bush administration in July 2000. Notwithstanding these pluses, the ARF has not met up with promise. It has been nothing more than a forum for dialogue. It did not contribute meaningfully to the resolution of the East Timor conflict. It does not have any influence on the current escalating nuclear crisis in North Korea, nor has it contributed to the present debate over a war against Iraq. Indeed, it is not clear that the Bush administration views the ARF as essential, or even important, in its own security calculations.

A key challenge of the ARF is to persuade the US not to continue with its unilateralist approach to international relations but to offer support to multilateral cooperation in its security approaches in the region. We need to strengthen the ARF to take on the challenges of living in a dangerous and unpredictable world. After all, the middle and smaller powers of the region are arguably the most vulnerable to any serious deterioration in the regional security environment that results from major power rivalry and the free movement of strategic powers. These middle and smaller powers have the most to gain from some capacity to shape and influence the security environment and they should put deliberate effort to put this capacity into place.

I would like to ask the Minister whether Singapore, on its part, is working towards a stronger ARF and if he thinks that ASEAN, in its weakened state, can remain in the driver's seat in this process.

The Second Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Madam, Dr Ong Chit Chung and other Members have noted the perceived decline of ASEAN post-Suharto and asked about ASEAN's continued relevance and measures to strengthen ASEAN.

As Prof. Jayakumar has said, post-September 11, the major powers have rediscovered ASEAN's importance in maintaining stability in Southeast Asia and countering terrorism. The US, China, Japan and India are also seeking closer economic cooperation, including free trade arrangements with ASEAN. They recognise the strategic and economic importance of ASEAN as a stable regional grouping and a growing market of 500 million people astride the trade route between Europe and East Asia.

After the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and the fall of Suharto in 1998, it is true that ASEAN has lost much of its lustre as one of the fastest growing regions in the world. In 1997, as short-term portfolio investors fled the region and regional currencies fell sharply against the US dollar, Thailand and Indonesia had to turn to IMF and the World Bank for financial rescue. Malaysia had to introduce capital controls to stabilise its financial and stock markets.

The region went through a period of economic contraction and political instability in 1998 and 1999. In year 2000, as signs of recovery emerged, unfortunately the IT bubble burst, hurting investors and denting consumers' confidence in the major export markets. Meanwhile, the rise of China has sucked away much foreign direct investment. Then came September 11 and the shock of global terrorism.

Despite these setbacks, ASEAN has gradually regained its footing. Political stability has improved. There has been some economic growth, partly driven by domestic demand and by increased revenue from oil exports, even though the global economic environment has remained unfavourable. However, the outlook has become more uncertain with the Iraq crisis.

Faced with severe challenges, it is vital that ASEAN remains united and outward-looking. During the Asian financial crisis, ASEAN strove to regain investors' interest and confidence by accelerating the pace of economic liberalisation through the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and the ASEAN Investment Area (AIA).

Since 1st January 2003, the original six members of ASEAN have lowered the tariffs on all the products committed under AFTA to between 0% and 5%. This includes more than 98% of all tariff lines that exist in the original six ASEAN countries. What remains is to reduce non-tariff barriers, prevent backsliding in some sensitive products such as automative components and eliminate tariffs further across the board.

In November 2002, at the 8th ASEAN Summit in Phnom Penh, PM Goh proposed the vision of the ASEAN Economic Community. It will provide a tangible end-point to the various economic initiatives within ASEAN, such as the AFTA, the AIA and the Roadmap for Integration of ASEAN (RIA). In many ways, the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) could be regarded as the economic component of ASEAN Vision 2020. It envisages the free flow of goods, services, technology and skilled manpower within ASEAN as an integrated economic grouping.

ASEAN officials are studying and defining the AEC concept for report to the ASEAN Economic Ministers' Meeting in September. It would then be presented to the ASEAN Leaders' Meeting in Bali in October.

The AEC embraces both economic integration and economic competitiveness aspects. While much has been achieved to free up the flow of goods and, to a lower extent, services within ASEAN, further liberalisation and integration are necessary for ASEAN to compete effectively with China as a single market.

To help ensure that the newer members of ASEAN are not left behind, PM Goh proposed in year 2000 the Initiatives for ASEAN Integration (IAI). Its emphasis is on training and capacity building. It helps to mobilise resources from within and outside ASEAN to close the development gap among ASEAN members.

Besides enhancing internal cooperation, ASEAN must remain outward-looking. ASEAN's combined strategic weight has enabled it to play a significant role in regional initiatives, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum, the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) and the Forum for East Asia and Latin America Cooperation (FEALAC). Through these forums, as well as the dialogue process of ASEAN+3 and ASEAN-Plus, ASEAN has engaged and strengthened ties with powers outside the region, including the US, EU, Japan, China, the Republic of Korea and India. 5.30 pm

Post-September 11, ASEAN's strategic importance has increased. ASEAN members are cooperating with one another and with other countries to combat the global threat of terrorism. Security and stability are vital for investor confidence in ASEAN, which has good potential as an alternative business location to China.

Aware of ASEAN's strategic importance and economic potential, the US, China, Japan and India are seeking to strengthen economic ties with ASEAN through FTAs or closer economic partnerships. The ASEAN-China Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation was signed at the 8th ASEAN Summit last year. The objective is to create an ASEAN-China Free Trade Area within 10 years. Not to be outdone, Japan has proposed the ASEAN-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership. The US came up with its Enterprise for ASEAN Initiative, starting with a series of bilateral trade and investment framework agreements. India, Australia and New Zealand are also seeking to enhance economic cooperation with ASEAN.

ASEAN continues to provide the framework under which peace has prevailed in the region. Despite some bilateral problems, such as the Thai-Myanmar border disputes, recent Thai-Cambodian tensions, and our problems with Malaysia, ASEAN has continued to focus on common objectives to enhance cooperation, both internally and with external powers. This is one of ASEAN's strengths. ASEAN Ministers and officials meet regularly on a wide range of issues and responsibilities. They build up friendship and understanding in the process. There is a conscious effort to put aside bilateral problems and move ahead with cooperation for the common good.

Singapore continues to place strong emphasis on enhancing our ties with other ASEAN countries, both bilaterally and as a group. Our fortunes are inextricably linked with those of the region. Except for our current difficulties with Malaysia, our relations with ASEAN are excellent. As a small but more developed member of ASEAN, we have to manage expectations of us. Within our capabilities, we have contributed ideas, vision and training resources to help build up ASEAN and maintain its relevance and focus. More than 50% of our technical assistance funds have gone to our ASEAN neighbours. We are one of the biggest investors in their economies. We strive to be a reliable partner and the business hub of the region.

Dr Ong Chit Chung asked whether ASEAN has expanded too fast in terms of membership. To answer this question, we need to remind ourselves why ASEAN was formed. Founded in 1967, its primary objectives were, and still are, firstly, peace and stability in Southeast Asia and, secondly, economic growth and prosperity through mutual cooperation. With the end of the Cold War and the resolution of the Cambodian issue, the Indo-Chinese states of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were eager to join ASEAN to enhance their stability and catch up with economic development. Myanmar had opened up and was also keen on ASEAN membership. With the four new members, ASEAN fulfilled the founding vision of ASEAN-10, a community of 10 Southeast Asian countries living and growing together in peace, harmony and stability.

Like other regional organisations, the expansion of ASEAN presents problems of disparity and integration. The newer and less developed members need assistance to close the development gap and more time to open up their markets to foreign investment and competition. Nevertheless, they have been very positive in wanting to catch up and integrate with ASEAN and the global community.

An expanded ASEAN has its advantages. Banding together the Southeast Asian countries into a community of 500 million people has provided the critical mass for ASEAN to better stand up to global and regional competition. ASEAN-10 also contributes to increasing our influence and bargaining power vis-a-vis other states and regional groups.

Madam, I will now turn to the questions on the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) raised by Dr Ong Chit Chung and Ms Irene Ng.

Formed in 1994, the ARF was intended to be a forum to build confidence and trust in the region through confidence-building measures. It was never meant to be a formal decision-making or problem-solving organisation on security issues. This is to encourage member countries, including the major powers, to engage each other frankly and constructively. Over the years, the ARF has allowed sensitive issues, such as the South China Sea and the situation in East Timor, to be discussed in a non-threatening environment.

More recently, the ARF has initiated discussions on the implications of terrorism and considered practical ways in which the ARF can support international efforts to counter terrorism. A series of ARF counter-terrorism workshops have been conducted. The ARF itself can be considered a confidence-building measure. Today, the ARF remains the only multi-lateral security forum in the Asia Pacific. It has helped create a more predictable and stable pattern of relationships among the major powers, and between the major powers and Southeast Asia.

Through the ARF, ASEAN has played the role of bringing together all the diverse members in a comfortable environment. ASEAN will continue to play its role. However, we remain aware that the ARF cannot move too fast. It is important that members feel comfortable with the pace of development. This will ensure that the ARF remains practical and relevant to its members.

One other aspect about the ARF is that it enables quiet bilateral discussions without the glare of publicity. For example, in 1995, the ARF provided the occasion for then-US Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, and then-Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen to meet, following the downturn in US-China relations over the visit of then-Taiwan President Lee Tenghui to Cornell University.

The Chairman: I would like to remind Members that we are running slightly behind time and to keep your speeches short. Dr Ong Chit Chung, can you move your next cut?

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Madam, Singapore-Malaysia relationship is like a yo-yo. It has its ups and its downs. It is also filled with thrill and excitement, like a roller-coaster ride. But we have to take all these in our stride.

Nevertheless, there are prospects for a change for the better. We must not lose heart, but have confidence that things will work out. I am glad, therefore, that Singapore and Malaysia have committed the Pedra Branca issue to the International Court of Justice. This is a step in the right direction. This is an objective way, a peaceful way, to deal with an outstanding problem.

I wish to ask whether both nations have ratified the Special Agreement to commit the issue to ICJ. I also wish to ask the Minister what are the next few steps both nations have to take to present their case to the ICJ and when the ICJ is likely to make a ruling on Pedra Branca.

Now that the total package approach has been abandoned by Malaysia, what is the latest stage of negotiations on water and other issues. How does the Minister see our relations with Malaysia evolving in the next few years? Will both countries evolve a win-win formula to the mutual benefit of both? What will be the impact of Islamic influence and ascent of PAS on Singapore-Malaysia relations? I believe that with goodwill on both sides of the causeway, Singapore and Malaysia can work together for the common good of our people, in a win-win situation or prosper-thy-neighbour policy. We should also deepen our bilateral ties with emphasis on people-to-people relationship. We should have more cultural exchanges, student-to-student contacts, and visits by officials and parliamentarians.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: The outstanding bilateral issues between the two countries have yet to be resolved. They include the price of water and its continued supply, the location of Malaysia's Customs, Immigration and Quarantine facilities, among other issues. The twists and turns of the negotiation process over the issues as a package highlight the lack of trust between the two countries in each other's intentions and actions. The experience also highlights how different the two countries are in their approach to international diplomacy.

As long as this deep mistrust stays, it is hard to move forward and improve our bilateral relationship in a meaningful way. It is like a plane trying to take off with a broken wing. It is not much good loading up the plane with good stuff when it cannot get very far on the runway. The question is how to build the trust needed. I would say, slowly. But there must be an attempt made in this direction. And perhaps we can start with the smallest problem that can be resolved first, or embark on bilateral cooperation projects that can be easily implemented, and that will reap real benefits for both sides. For example, both countries could jointly embark on road shows to woo tourists to both countries as a package. With a series of small win-win successes under their belt, perhaps both countries can then feel more confident of tackling the more complicated issues that require good faith and trust from both sides.

Ahead of the general elections in Malaysia, bilateral relations are expected to take another beating, as politicians tend to resort to the well-worn tactic of using Singapore as a bogeyman to whip up nationalist sentiments. Whilst such swings complicate the relationship with Malaysia, Singapore has made it clear that it values its relations with Malaysia. Indeed, even at the height of the dispute between the two countries over the outstanding issues in January this year, amidst talk of war in the Malaysian media, our Minister for Foreign Affairs took pains to stress that their common bilateral interests exceed their differences.

Can I ask the Minister how he sees cooperation between the two countries being stepped up for mutual benefit?

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed (Aljunied): Madam, Singapore-Malaysia relations are so mired with problems that sometimes one wonders whether it is worth all the trouble to keep it afloat or to believe that a win-win working relationship is at all possible. One can understand if that kind of feeling crops up every now and then, especially lately, but one cannot forget the fact that we will continue to be neighbours and we need to make the best of that.

Our post-independence history is short, but we have witnessed many rounds of acrimony, in fact, Singapore-bashing. Singapore took all that in her stride, until recently, when Singapore decided to lay bare the facts once and for all to clear the air about the many accusations that were thrown at Singapore over water, Pedra Branca and the bridge issues, among others. Even talk about war was bandied about irresponsibly. Well, that was how we saw it.

Malaysia saw things differently. In fact, the Malaysian media had carried out their campaign so successfully that many, if not most, Malaysians swallowed their story hook, line and sinker, much to the detriment of people-to-people relationship. There were exceptions. For example, there were Malaysians who practically called on the Malaysian government to stop the wayang and to stick to the facts and principles of the issues at hand, like what Singapore did.

My questions are: what are the lessons Singapore should learn from this? How would the recent spat colour the way we handle bilateral relations? We have our perspectives, and they theirs. Where shall the twain meet? Recognising the importance of the Singapore-Malaysia relations, beyond water and Pedra Branca, especially in the context of the global and regional fight against terrorism, how would MFA go about mending fences and bridging bilateral relations and bringing them to an even keel again?

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Madam, with President Megawati in Jakarta, Singapore-Indonesia relations have improved over time. However, we should ask what will be the impact of rising Islamic assertiveness on Singapore-Indonesia relationship.

Madam, Indonesia received a boost when its government successfully sold a 42% stake in the country's second largest telecommunications company, Indosat, to Singapore Technologies Telemedia (STT) in December last year. This was an important move by a Singapore company, emphasising the commitment to assist Indonesia during these troubled times. STT won the bid by paying a hefty 50% premium over the market price. Yet, anti-Singapore sentiment was strong. Compare this with the situation a month later, when Indonesia lost the ICJ judgment to Malaysia, resulting in the loss of sovereignty and control of Sipadan and Ligitan islands. Considering the strong sense of Indonesian nationalism, it was surprising that there was a no big adverse reaction to Malaysia. 5.45 pm

Singapore should mull over this. First, a review should be made of the current state of Singapore-Indonesia relations. Second, such a review should focus on specific policies that would advance both Singapore and Indonesian interests. And third, while the Civil Service Exchange Programme is an excellent initiative, more should be done to broaden the linkages between Singapore and Indonesia, particularly in the NGO sector. Much of Singapore's interaction with Indonesia revolves around investment relations. Yet, the over-emphasis on this area may inadvertently bring with it unwanted perception of Singapore as being overly profit-orientated.

Singapore needs to consider balancing the strong economic emphasis in the relationship with equal emphasis on building institution and institutional linkages. It is through institution, both government and non-government organisations, that the next generation of Indonesian leaders will emerge and engage their Singapore counterparts.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Madam, I would like to echo what my GPC Chairman said that we need to engage a wider range of new players in Indonesia beyond the top leadership in politics and military sectors in Indonesia. Singapore's perceived obsession today with picking winners to nurture makes little sense in a fluid political environment where the absence of strong leadership would be normal in the short to medium term. So we have to put more emphasis on conducting dialogues and building greater ties with its emerging leaders in both NGOs and academia as well as in political parties.

I have taken part in some dialogues in Jakarta involving civil society activists, academics, young politicians and the media. I find it useful because I have found that their perceptions of Singapore tend to be less than flattering, and most of their perceptions are based on stereotypes which can be corrected if you engage them in dialogue. Of course, they might use the opportunity to score some points. But, I think, at the end of the day, if the exchange is frank and we depart with a greater understanding of each other's position, it is a dialogue worth pursuing.

With the rise of new social and political forces emerging in the democratic post-Suharto era, I would like to ask the Minister what efforts has the Government made to build ties with the range of new players and have our efforts been useful in establishing greater understanding between the two countries.

Dr Warren Lee: Madam, in 1995, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, in a speech to the leaders of some African nations said that Singapore had learnt a great deal from other countries in the course of our development. Not only did we learn real skills, we also avoided their mistakes. And if they thought our experience was relevant, we were happy to share with them.

Singapore has had a Singapore Cooperation Programme since 1992, in order to share our technical expertise with others and institutions of higher learning, as well as the Singapore Port Institute and the Singapore Aviation Academy. In teaching our neighbours how to fish, we are doing good to the world. In doing so, however, are we also perhaps sowing the seeds of future competition for our own goods and services? Or are we sowing the seeds of future cooperation and mutual economic interest? If the latter, how can these programmes be further enhanced? Could we have more initiatives that will help ordinary Singaporeans give foreigners a positive impression of Singapore? Can these programmes also be opportunities for Singaporeans to become more aware of economic and social opportunities abroad?

I hope the Minister could address some of these issues.

Prof. Jayakumar: Madam, first on Malaysia-Singapore relations. I would like to thank the Members who have spoken. I do not intend to go into a great explanation of our relations because only on 25th January, I gave a comprehensive statement of bilateral relations. This sets out the facts of the various issues, the published documents, and also set out the steps forward. So may I just confine myself in responding through general remarks.

I agree with Dr Ong Chit Chung when he said that Malaysia-Singapore relations are like a yo-yo. They go up and down. I think differences are bound to emerge between close neighbours. But while that may be so, the fact remains that our countries are closely intertwined. The areas of our common interests have always been greater than that of our disagreements. It is for that reason that I believe that Malaysia and Singapore should not allow specific disagreements to affect the overall tenor of bilateral relations. We should try to address disagreements in a calm and mature way, using negotiations where possible, and if it is not possible through negotiations, and if negotiations have been exhausted, then we should have recourse to the legal process. And we should continue to cooperate in the areas which lend themselves to cooperation.

In this vein, I want to draw attention of Members to the recent comments by Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi and Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar. Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi was quoted to say on 3rd March that there was "an inextricable relationship between Malaysia and Singapore. There will be differences of opinion on many things. There will perhaps be periods of tension because we do not see things from the same perspective. But I believe that the relationship with Malaysia and Singapore will not deteriorate to the extent that it will involve us in any kind of conflict".

In a similar vein on 7th March 2003, Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar was quoted in Dubai as saying, "Both countries value peace and stability and that is why we have agreed to refer the issue (he was referring to Pedra Branca) to the ICJ. The dispute should not interfere with the long-term relations between Malaysia and Singapore."

I welcome these sentiments. Differences no doubt remain in the bilateral relationship, but so do our inter-linkages and the tremendous potential for bilateral cooperation. I think it is a sound approach to try to get beyond our disagreements and to focus on long-term relations.

I think that we are already doing that to some extent. Both countries cooperate in the various international foras. In the domestic security field, there is close cooperation between both sides, both police forces. In defence, there are bilateral exchanges and common exercises. Our two economies are closely intertwined. Malaysia was Singapore's top trading partner in 2002, while Singapore has always been among Malaysia's top trading partners. There are also strong ties between the people of our two countries. Not just political and official contacts, but cultural, business and social ones. These contacts are important as they nurture familiarity and mutual understanding. I believe this helps to preserve positive elements in bilateral ties by fostering institutional and personal links between the two countries.

Dr Ong Chit Chung asked specific questions as to the state of the ratification process of the Special Agreement that was signed on 6th February. Let me say that on 17th February 2003, we informed Malaysia that the Singapore Government has ratified the Special Agreement and that we are ready to exchange instruments of ratification at a mutually convenient date. We are awaiting a notification from Malaysia on when they are ready to exchange instruments of ratification. I am sure this will be done very soon. And when that is done, that will be one more step in the process. I cannot give an exact date. After ratification, both sides could have a joint letter to the Court (ICJ), and then the Court will get seized with the matter. Then there are certain timeframes for filing memorials, replies, rejoinders, and so on. And as to when the Court will actually hand down its decision, this depends on the workload before the Court. But I must say that I do not see a decision being handed down earlier than two-and-a-half to three years' time.

So to sum up, I hope Members will understand when I do not go into great detail but just confine myself to saying that we seek a cooperative relationship with Malaysia based on mutual benefit and mutual respect. If we can put our disagreements aside, and manage them in accordance with internationally recognised conventions on dispute settlements, I think we can move forward for mutual benefit. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked what is the latest state of affairs on negotiations. There are no negotiations at the moment for the reasons that I have explained in my 25th January statement.

On Indonesia, I thank the Members who have spoken. Let me say that we have good relations with the Indonesia leadership. There have been many exchanges between both the countries. Prime Minister Goh visited in December 2002 and met with President Megawati and other Indonesian leaders and influential policy-makers. As I said earlier, our Prime Minister was the first foreign leader to visit Jakarta after the Bali bombings. This was to demonstrate our confidence in Indonesia.

I fully agree with Members who have spoken that relations between Singapore and Indonesia should be broadened. In other words, it should not be just Government-to-Government at the top level. That has never been our approach. Various Ministers have visited Indonesia and vice-versa. And we are also broadening contacts with people in other sectors. Whenever we go to Indonesia, for example, we meet a cross-section of influential people, whether they are journalists or think-tank people. At the last occasion, we have met with a cross-section of leaders in the Muslim organisations. We also have contacts between officials at the MFA-DEPLU Exchange, which is an annual event.

When the Prime Minister went to Indonesia, he proposed the Indonesia-Singapore Civil Service Exchange Programme (CSEP). I think that will further enhance another dimension of our cooperation. I agree with Dr Warren Lee and others who have stressed that we must have people-to-people level relations. And in this regard, when Dr Warren Lee asked how we can involve ordinary Singaporeans, I should say that they may want to contact organisations like the Singapore International Foundation (SIF). They have despatched volunteer specialists to Indonesia on many community projects, including the training of doctors in hospitals in various parts of Indonesia. Singaporeans can get involved in such projects.

I agree with Dr Ong Chit Chung and Ms Irene Ng. Ms Irene Ng had noted that the Indonesian society has become increasingly complex. It is really going through a difficult transitional period. The change of government in 1998 has ushered in a new Indonesia and a far more complicated political equation and dynamics. Here Dr Ong Chit Chung had mentioned about the role of religion and Islamic groups. It is part of the equation. There are now more power centres which have influence over overall Indonesian policies. This change has made the conduct of our bilateral relations more complex and the challenge for us is to find ways and means to manage the relationship and to maintain the good relations we currently enjoy.

I wish to assure Dr Ong and other Members that the points they have made are uppermost in our minds as we seek to maintain good relations with an Indonesia that is changing and will continue to change in the years ahead.

Mr Sin Boon Ann: Singapore became a member of the Security Council at the time of great change and great tragedy in the world. Madam, now that Singapore is no longer a member of the Security Council, should we allow ourselves to just fade away from the world stage or is there still a role for us? I think that Singapore has a good opportunity to show to the world that small states can make significant contributions to the UN.

I would therefore like to ask the Minister what steps his Ministry is taking to ensure that Singapore remains involved in the UN. Are we likely to send more of our men to peace-keeping missions around the world? Are we willing to offer aid, be it economic or financial, to developing countries around the world? Will we play a substantial role in United Nations institutions such as the UNESCO and UNICEF?

All these efforts would signal our maturity as a country and allow us to continue to play a useful role in the world stage. Just because Singapore is no longer a member of the Security Council does not mean that we should let our efforts and our attention slide.

Dr Warren Lee: Madam, I would say that Mr Sin Boon Ann has actually brought up the majority of the points that I was thinking of. I am glad we share the same viewpoint. But I would just like to add two points ie, whether Singapore can continue to play a role with regard to international laws in the areas of civil aviation and the settlement of territorial disputes at sea. Our interests are quite evident, but I am wondering whether we can be a part of the multilateral process, overall.

6.00 pm

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed: Madam, what I wanted to say on the question of Iraq has actually been answered by Prof. Jayakumar quite eloquently. But I just wanted to say that there is more to life than after Iraq and Palestine. Because Singapore has played a very important role in terms of its contributions and influence in matters pertaining to the United Nations, Law of the Sea Conference and the World Environment Summit. What will MFA do to ensure that our credibility and standing in the eyes of the world remain, especially when we face issues like Palestine and Iraq?

Mdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong): Madam, because of our position, I think, increasingly, Singapore will be asked to perform a wider role in the community of nations. Increasingly, I think we will be called upon to provide financial aid or other forms of assistance to less developed countries. Indeed, for many developed countries, official development assistance (ODA) has become a strategic tool in order to generate goodwill and build allies - important bridges in international diplomacy. But we are not in the league of the big OECD countries when it comes to foreign aid, and our resources are finite. We should, first and foremost, be focused on developing our own resources for our own people. However, having a clear idea of our stand on this issue and where we are heading is, I believe, useful.

In that context, I would like to ask the Minister the following questions:

Firstly, what is our foreign aid policy and how effective have we been? I define "foreign aid" broadly to include both direct and indirect aid, such as medical supplies, technical expertise, resources general to civic organisations, as well as programmes which are sponsored and run in Singapore to help other countries develop their expertise or manpower.

Secondly, how much aid have we provided in the past, to which countries and for what purposes?

Thirdly, I would like to ask the Minister whether there are any plans to provide aid to the Iraqi people in the event that a war breaks out. We will pray very hard that this does not happen but, if it does, then I believe that we can help to lessen the sufferings of the Iraqi people by joining the UN or other international aid agencies in their humanitarian efforts to help the people and to rebuild Iraq.

The Chairman: Mr Raymond Lim, you have seven minutes.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat): Madam, I shall be brief, not because brevity is necessarily the soul of wit, but when you are the tail-end speaker for your Ministry, time tends to be compressed.

First, let me take the questions of Mr Sin and Dr Lee. The answer is yes. There is indeed life after the Security Council. The Security Council, arguably, is the most important body in the UN, but many issues that are of interest to member states are actually taken outside the UN Security Council, in the General Assembly and other specialised bodies of the United Nations.

Singapore has always actively participated in the UN, even before we were in the Security Council, and we intend to continue to do so. We do not intend to fade away. In the last four years, for instance, even before we entered the UN Security Council, Singapore had participated in a series of UN summits and world conferences on many different issues - issues as diverse as women, children, HIV, AIDS and, more recently, last year, on sustainable development. We will continue to do so.

Dr Lee asked about our engagement with other international organisations, like the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). In the case of ICAO, we have sought to be elected to its governing council.

On how do we support the peaceful settlement of disputes, I think the best way to do that is by example. A good example is on the question of Pedra Branca. We have taken the initiative to refer the matter to the International Court of Justice.

Mr Zainul asked how do we maintain credibility in the international community. I think we will continue to do what we have always done, and that is, we have always taken the approach where we are guided by principles of international law, by compliance with the United Nations Charter and the United Nations Security Council's resolutions. I think it is perhaps reflecting our consistent and principled approach that Singapore is taken seriously in the international community. It is really out of proportion to our size. And perhaps again reflecting this, Singapore is increasingly being represented in international bodies. In the UN, we have Under Secretary Dilip Nair who heads the UN Internal Audit Office and Miss Noeleen Heyzer, the well-respected Head of the UN Development Fund for Women. We now have a candidate, Mrs Anamah Tan, for the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the treaty body that oversees compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, to which Singapore is a party. This is a prestigious body and seats are hotly contested. If we win, it will boost our standing at the United Nations.

Mdm Halimah asked three questions. First, what is our policy on foreign aid? Like her, I share the view that Singapore should play an active part in helping developing countries. She will be pleased to know that we have done so under the Singapore Cooperation Programme (SCP), which Dr Warren Lee mentioned earlier. But unlike traditional donor aid programmes, Singapore believes that it can best contribute by helping developing countries build up its human resource and organisational capacities that are critical to sustain growth. Since its inception in 1992, over 23,000 participants from 150 countries have participated in short-term training courses and study visits under the SCP. While the main beneficiaries of the SCP have been ASEAN countries, our geographical outreach has extended to developing countries in Africa, Latin America, Middle East, South Pacific and the Caribbean.

She asked what is the figure that we have contributed. Just to give a sense of it, in 2001, Singapore contributed $260 million towards international development assistance. If we use certain benchmark, for instance, the median official development assistance (ODA), for the OECD countries, is 0.31% of gross national income. Singapore's figure comes up to 0.17% of our gross national income. This compares favourably with the United States, which is 0.11%.

Her last question: would we provide humanitarian aid to Iraq if there is a war? The answer is yes. Singapore is likely to contribute in the same way as we did for Afghanistan in the form of technical assistance and humanitarian aid. I think what is important here is how, as a community, Government and the people, we respond to sufferings elsewhere. And I think Singapore has shown through our spontaneous help in the case of Afghanistan and Bali that we have a heart. I am sure that if there is a war in Iraq, the same humanitarian hand will be extended.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Madam, I want to thank the Ministers for their very comprehensive and interesting answers.

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Item 2, Dr Tan Cheng Bock is not moving. Mr Heng Chee How.

Mr Heng Chee How: Madam, I had intended to ask the Minister for an update on the Pedra Branca issue, so that all Singaporeans and Malaysians will know that, on the Singapore side, we are always very keen for a proper resolution of the matter. However, the Minister has already provided a reply in response to the same question posed by Dr Ong Chit Chung. I am therefore not moving my cut.

The sum of $219,242,930 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $78,987,300 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head W -

The Chairman: Head W - Ministry of Transport. Mr Chay Wai Chuen.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Tanjong Pagar): Madam, I beg to move,

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

Madam, I was told that the North-East Line was built at a cost of $5 billion, and it is supposed to be a state-of-the-art driverless train system. Its opening has been anxiously expected by many residents in the North East, who will be likely users of the line. However, they are quite anxious about the cost of the fares. Can the Minister explain why the fare structure has not been announced up to now?

Preliminary indications are that the fares will be higher than the SMRT lines. The rationale for having such a different fare structure is that the North East Line, supposedly, has a higher operating cost. Naturally, as the line is new and the traffic build-up is not fully completed, there will be a higher per passenger operational cost. On the contrary, the SMRT lines - East West and North South lines - have already been running for 14 years, and traffic and development build up along the lines have been stabilised. The strong argument, I believe, for having a uniform structure of fares, even though there are two operators, is that both lines feed into each other and form an integrated system.

The original investor of the system is the Government, serving the people's needs. It is not as though the lines are owned by different investors looking to maximise their own different returns. The North East Line is as much a part of the integrated existing lines, just as the North South Line is integrated with the East West Line.

If a uniform fare structure does not yield the needed rates of return in spite of efficiency criteria, then some way of compensation, through feeder rebates, can be devised. If we do not do this, then it is patently unfair to the residents of the North East region to pay for the operation of the line - efficient and built at a huge cost by the Government with the state-of-the-art equipment, which perhaps they do not need, if given a choice.

The second point I want to raise is with regard to the safety features of the North East Line system. I raised this point last year and I want to raise it again. Could the Minister assure the House that safety features for this driverless train system will be quite thoroughly looked into, especially with the supplier of the control system as well as the rolling stock? Given the fact that, in recent months, there have been quite a number of accidents, we would like to assure the members of the public that such a driverless train system will be thoroughly safe.

Encik Yatiman Yusof: Madam, some people say that an MRT station is an MRT station. But when I was at the Hougang MRT North East Line station last month for the official opening of the civil defence shelter, I saw an MRT station with a difference. There was a huge art work by our Singapore artists, decorating the walls and the open space of the station. I told myself, "This is really arts everywhere", and it is wonderful. LTA deserves to be congratulated for doing such an excellent job.

I understand that similar specially presented art works are found at every station at the North East Line. This is great. By doing so, LTA is not only able to create the right ambience for the station, project distinct identity for each station, it also showcases the works of our local artists. What is even more interesting is that the art works were incorporated during the construction stage. And by doing so, the LTA managed to do it at a much lower cost. I am sure the public would appreciate it, provided that it would not be charged to their fare, as emphasised by Mr Chay.

I also believe that such art works would have therapeutic value to the tired bodies and stressed minds of commuters taking our trains when they reach the station to return home. My question is: will this also be a new feature for the Circle Line stations which are still under construction? I ask this question because with the budget reduction exercise carried out now, many would think that the Circle Line does not have to have what the North East Line has. The arts and the aesthetics aspect of the Circle Line may be sacrificed. If this happens, it is really sad because if it is not incorporated at the construction stage, it would be very costly to have it later. 6.15 pm

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Madam, the 2002 Labour Market Report released on Friday showed that for the whole of 2002, overall unemployment rate in Singapore averaged 4.4%. Translated into numbers, almost 90,000 residents were unemployed. Yet, when we tried to match these unemployed workers to jobs, one of the most common reasons cited by them is "too far". So, are they fussy? Or do workers really face transportation problems getting to work?

I know that companies in inaccessible industrial estates, such as Tuas, have difficulties finding workers. Madam, it takes almost one hour for a worker who stays in the nearest housing estate to Tuas, ie, Jurong East, to get to the Tuas Industrial Park. So, you will see how difficult it is. Another example is the shipyard. Hence, these companies have resorted to providing private buses for their workers. This adds to business costs. Even in the instances where the workers bear the costs, the private bus fares are generally higher than the public transport options. This will reduce the take-home pay for the workers.

In view of this, I would like to make some suggestions for the Minister to consider:

First, I hope the Ministry consider extending and expanding the MRT network into industrial estates such as Tuas. This will shorten the travelling time for workers, which will make them more willing to take up jobs in these areas. This will also give companies there a boost and help address the issue of our unemployment situation.

Second, would the Ministry also consider building additional stations along the existing MRT network where it passes by industrial estates? This was proven to be doable with the Dover station added on to the East West Line or Singapore Polytechnic.

Mr Ong Kian Min (Tampines): Madam, I have three points regarding the public bus system.

First, the Public Transport Council (PTC), in releasing its Bus Service Audit in September 2002, acknowledged that there were bus services with problems of overloading and long headways. The PTC said that this was unsatisfactory and reflected the general dissatisfaction of commuters in these performance aspects and recognised the need to reduce overcrowding and long waiting times on some services.

If I may quote from the report:

"We recognise that some existing standards are based on figures averaged over the survey period, which may not accurately reflect the performance of bus services from the passengers' viewpoint. Some standards also tend to be over prescriptive. For this reason, the PTC is currently reviewing the standards with a view to ensuring that service standards are relevant and closely reflect the public's expectation for service quality and affordability."

That report and its acknowledgement of the shortcomings are an encouraging start. May I ask the Minister, since the publication of the report, what progress has been made in reviewing the standards?

My second point relates to a report in the Straits Times of 28th February 2003 that LTA had decided to drop a $40.3 million plan to provide commuters with bus arrival times via information panels at bus stops and interchanges and over the Internet, just months before the project was to have been completed.

I would like to ask the Minister why the project was aborted at such a late stage and how much had been spent on the project before it was aborted? Why was the feasibility study on the software and integration not conducted fully before embarking on such a high cost project?

My third point relates to feeder bus services. The PTC's rules on door width and platform height make it very capital expensive for bus companies, other than SBS Transit and TIBS, to offer feeder bus services. Now with the merger of Comfort bus and SBS Transit, in the medium term, I do not think there is any other bus company in Singapore that is able or prepared to offer comprehensive commuter feeder bus services for a housing estate. Other rules, like not allowing pick-up of passengers from public bus stops, serve to protect the incumbent public bus operator.

This being the case, if the incumbent operator is not willing to improve its services for a particular area, the alternative would be to consider niche services dedicated to meet a particular need of residents to travel from one area to another not directly or adequately served by the existing services. For example, instead of taking public buses and having to change buses, residents in a certain precinct may need and be willing to pay for a direct service to a particular wet market. Operators and the supporting grassroots organisations will have to be creative to come up with various service schemes to meet residents' demand. And I hope the Ministry of Transport and the PTC will be understanding and allow such niche solutions to be implemented.

Mr Wee Siew Kim: Madam, can I take the two cuts together?

The Chairman: Yes, please.

Mr Wee Siew Kim: The cost of transportation is never far from the forefront of many people's minds. While there is widespread appreciation of the quality of our system and widespread acknowledgement that the investments in public transportation infrastructure, like roads and rail, have made travelling about for both work and play so much more pleasurable, we must, however, continue to focus on cost. Bus and rail operators are contracted by the authorities to run the services. The learning on the frontlines by the operators would no doubt reveal more efficient ways to provide the quality service that we all so desire.

I ask the Minister to consider having regular reviews between the authorities and operators so that the licensed operation conditions have the fora to be continuously adjusted to reflect changing conditions, and incorporate such learning experience. Stipulations and conditions that are proven over time to be overly stringent - kiasu would be another characterisation - must be gradually relaxed, finding a new balance and equilibrium among the factors of quality, cost and safety. Such a partnership between the authority and transport operators would, I think, lead to an even more cost-effective transport system.

Let me now move on to the issue of fare transfer rebates. It is my understanding that we have adopted an administratively efficient system of fare rebates between the bus and rail operations with a transfer rebate paid from the operator of the first mode of transport to the operator of the follow-on mode. This transfer is transparent to the travelling public. Now that there are multiple rail and bus operators, it may be timely that the transfer rebate mechanism be re-examined to assess if it still provides adequate equity; and, secondly, to address the transfer pricing so that people plying solely on the shorter feeder services do not end up paying more.

Can I ask the Minister to consider that in fare pricing, adequate attention be given such that pricing should not only consider full cost recovery but it should also be complemented with measures to drive maximum utilisation of the system, especially with new additions like the North East Line. This may accelerate the development of the new towns and give a boost to businesses there.

The Chairman: Mr Steve Chia is not here. Mr Chay Wai Chuen.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen: Madam, people waiting for taxis at taxi stands outside shopping centres in the city on rainy days or during holiday seasons are understandably unhappy about the availability of taxis when they are needed. During those times, rainy days or holiday seasons, the demand for taxis far outstrips the availability by a factor of perhaps two to three times. Is it any surprise that the customers are disappointed and that they write about it in the press and berate the quality of our taxi service here?

The problem has nothing to do, I believe, with the quality of taxi service or the cost of taxi fares - too cheap or too expensive, as some argued. It has nothing to do with what some people have argued that taxi fares in Singapore are too cheap compared to other countries. Therefore, it is argued, by making it higher, it will solve the problem. I think it has to do with devising micro-management tools to incentivise delivery of output at those windows of demand. It has to do with tweaking the system presently to generate relativity of return by price and by routes to incentivise the drivers of taxis to position themselves to get better relative returns, in order to answer to those special local demands at shopping malls or during those special times like rainy days.

Leaving the current system as it is and monitoring the performance of taxis as it is, based on a high level or macro level approach, as under the present system, will not deliver the results. Only the LTA can provide the regulatory tweaks to produce the desired outcomes. My question is: why does the LTA not want to do it? Because of our unique CBD with ERP toll system, traffic within the city limit is quite unique and has its own set of fees and charges. The rules which the LTA should set must overcome the current price barriers and yet incentivise the delivery. Leaving it as it is or raising taxi fares without incentivising relativity of return will not serve the problem.

Mr Ong Kian Min: Madam, I have three cuts on taxi service. Since I do not think I have time to cover all three, I shall just cover the first one.

My first cut relates to the quality of our taxi services. Recently, under the new taxi licensing framework, the Land Transport Authority introduced the quality of service (or QOS) standards for taxis. The first five of a total of eight service qualities touch on phone booking. I am puzzled as to why phone booking is so crucial that all taxi companies must have this facility. Is this so basic a service that a taxi operator cannot offer a good taxi service without it? Using an analogy from the airline industry, it is tantamount to requiring all new players wanting to set up a new airline to offer in-flight services of the same quality as Singapore Airlines with video-on-demand on all classes, wonderful meal choices, on-line ticket reservation and all. In the US, some airlines have recently introduced low cost services catering to budget conscious travellers, where one has to pay for meals on board, refreshments and the audio headset. At the same time, there may be other airlines that want to offer premium service to distinguish themselves and cater to a different segment of the market.

So, why should we not allow someone to set up a no-frills taxi service without having to invest in costly call centre and despatch facilities to manage telephone booking? After all, a key objective of the licensing framework must be to meet the needs of the commuting public. Competition is supposed to bring about more choices and cut cost. If someone sees the long queues at taxi stands, and the dissatisfied commuters waiting along the roadsides, and thinks there is a commuter demand, why can he not be allowed to set up a taxi operation just catering to this demand, without having to set up a call centre to manage phone booking?

The official answer seems to be that to allow someone to come in without such requirements will be unfair to the incumbent who has invested in all this expensive equipment. But why must all newcomers be locked in to a less than ideal business model? The rules should be more flexible. The phone booking qualities of service should only apply to the taxi operator who offers phone booking service as part of its overall business strategy. The rules should be flexible enough to provide the taxi operator with the option of deciding whether to provide such a facility for its customers. If an operator believes that he can provide the essential taxi service to meet the demands of our commuters, notwithstanding not having phone booking, why not let the commuters decide? Essentially, competition is about letting the market decide.

Madam, may I move on to my next cut relating to taxi fares and pricing mechanism?

The Chairman: It is almost 6.30 pm.

Mr Ong Kian Min: Okay. I will take that tomorrow.

The Chairman: Order. It is 6.30 pm.

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

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2003/2004, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: So be it.