HEAD R - MINISTRY OF LAW

Column:1033

Head R - Ministry of Law

**__ The Chairman: ** Head R - Ministry of Law. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung.

Legal Expertise and International Disputes

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

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

Sir, these few years had been difficult years for the legal system and the lawyers. Wide ranging issues have arisen, from international dispute settlements to conduct of lawyers and the legal profession, to community dispute settlements. The legal infrastructure also needs to be improved to accommodate and to foster an entrepreneurial spirit among Singaporeans and to encourage foreign investment in Singapore. The GPC for Law will deal with some of the

Column: 1034

issues as will other Members of the House.

I start first with the legal expertise and international disputes. I just want to know what is the situation like in Singapore, since there are several disputes now being suggested that we go for international tribunals like ICJ or international arbitration. Singapore has recently opted for legal resolution, for example, to long-standing disputes with Malaysia. These include the claim to Pedra Branca and the reclamation along Singapore's coastline. Who represented Singapore in these hearings? Were there sufficient international law experts to ensure that Singapore's case was properly argued and presented? Given that this mode of international dispute settlement is likely to be more frequently used in future, what plans, if any, are there to improve on our international law expertise in Singapore?

The Chairman: Assoc. Prof. Chin, take the other two cuts together, please.

Intellectual Property Law Regime

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, I will take the two cuts together.

I next move to the intellectual property law regime. This year's Budget reaffirms the moves by the Government to encourage entrepreneurship, as I had mentioned, and the creation, of course, of more intellectual capital. While we applaud the extension of various tax incentives, we know that these will not be sufficient. Singapore is still at the early stages of building up a knowledge economy and we need to put many more supporting structures in place, one of which is the capabilities of the intellectual property law regime.

The Minister had previously announced that there will be improvements made to the IP law regime.

Column: 1035

I would like to know how far these improvements have gone and whether we can expect more improvements to come. The DPM and Minister for Finance's Budget speech mentioned the importance of FTAs in helping Singapore businesses make inroads into key markets like the US and Japan. The US-Singapore FTA also contains a very substantial IP chapter. Singapore is of course at a very different stage of IP development compared to countries like the US. Our businesses have just recovered from difficult times, and they may not be ready enough to take advantage of IP while avoiding many of the legal problems that may arise. What has the Ministry of Law done to accommodate and to enhance our IP legislation so that Singapore's regime can be an attractive site for foreign companies to come and set up intellectual property businesses here?

Bankruptcy Law

On a sadder note, I turn to bankruptcy. Having suffered a number of economic downturns, we know that there has been an increase in the number of people being made bankrupt. I would like to ask the Minister whether he can give an update on the bankruptcy situation in Singapore. How many persons have been made bankrupt? Of these, how many were made bankrupt because they had failed in business, and how many had been so because of poor personal financial management? Has the legislation been able to differentiate between those who take business risks which subsequently failed, and those who simply overspent? Is it time to review and refine the legislation so that we can help Singaporeans who do want to be active in entrepreneurship and so on but who unfortunately failed from those who simply take advantage of the liberal bankruptcy laws and overspend? How do we, therefore, encourage Singaporeans to

Column: 1036

live within their means and, at the same time, help those who are entrepreneurs to recover from failed enterprises?

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Encik Yatiman Yusof): Sir, the economic downturn had affected many people. It had led to a steady increase of bankruptcy cases in Singapore. While some were declared bankrupt because of genuine business failures, there were also those who became undischarged bankrupts for living beyond their means.

During my MPS sessions, I came across a number of undischarged bankrupt cases related to the use of credit card facilities. One particular case involved a resident who owed close to $80,000 from seven credit card companies. He earned about $3,500 a month before the economic downturn. With such income, how could he be allowed to have seven credit cards and accumulated close to $80,000 liability? Now, he gets only $1,500 a month and he has chosen bankruptcy rather than paying the banks. There are many bankruptcy cases I have read in the newspapers involving professionals, celebrities and executives. There was this very well-known personality who owed $300,000 to a stockbroking firm when the share market crashed. The said celebrity has conveniently self-petitioned for bankruptcy, continues with normal lifestyle and career, and makes some payments and waits for three or more years for a discharge order. Meanwhile, the remisier who had handled the transactions and who had failed to make good was sacked and declared a bankrupt. He lost everything, including his social standing. Yet, the bankrupt concerned continues living a normal life.

Sir, is it true that only 10% of bankruptcy cases are due to business failures? If it is so, indeed it is alarming,

Column: 1037

as the remaining 90% are for other reasons, most of which could be due to their living less than desired lifestyles. Is there a way whereby these people can be prevented from seeking refuge under the bankruptcy law without having to take responsibility for their actions? In this connection, I think there is a need to further refine the existing bankruptcy law to prevent this abuse. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on this.

Legal Profession

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, these are tough times for lawyers. The good times are gone. Many lawyers have chosen other fields of employment. An errant few have chosen to run off with their clients' monies. It has become a matter of concern, so much so that the Chief Justice himself had to remind the Law Society to come up with better guidelines. In today's paper, it was announced that such guidelines have been evolved. But, at the same time, the legal profession appeared to be somewhat unhappy with some of these requirements that are new.

There have also been complaints to the Law Society about overcharging and about malpractice. It is a very difficult time for the profession, we must all accept. At the same time, we must also make sure that things are not so tough for lawyers that the young and talented people would not take up law as a profession. Has the Ministry done any study to find out why the young lawyers are disaffected in practice and what needs to be done to assist lawyers to weather the storm of fiercer competition from foreign law firms as well as protecting the interests of their clients? Has anything been done to ensure that exorbitant fees are not charged so as to give lawyers a bad name? Where the legal profession has been able to satisfy the clients that they are doing a good job, all these matters, I think, need to be studied and

Column: 1038

the situation should be clear to all those who have to rely on lawyers.

Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair: Sir, on the legal profession, section 38(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act states that, "The purposes of the Law Society include, inter alia , to assist the Government and the courts in all matters affecting legislation submitted to it, and the administration and practice of the law in Singapore." This law ought to be amended, Sir. It is an archaic law, passed in the late 80s, I believe, for reasons that were unpleasant at that time. We should remove the words, "submitted to it" and allow a free flow of ideas on the laws of Singapore. It affects the dignity of the legal profession. We must have confidence in our legal profession and our other professional associations. The Law Society of Singapore ought to be allowed to comment on legislation

without any Government request as they must be taken to be responsible and competent. They are in the business of law. It is good for Singapore society to have another competent body and learned voice looking at and commenting on current and pending legislation besides Parliament and the Cabinet.

5.00 pm

The qualifications for entry into the profession of advocates and solicitors must also be reviewed. A Qualified Person under sections 11 and 12 of the Legal Profession Act must be revisited to see if we could be more generous with our admission requirements. Why cannot LLB (Second Class) (Lower Honours) or even LLB (Third Class) (Honours) be given the choice to practise law? We have had lawyers and judges before with Second Class (Lower Honours) and Third Class (Honours) doing well as lawyers and judges. Law students and their families who obtained Second Class (Lower Honours) and Third Class (Honours) would, instead of thinking of migrating because these students cannot

Column: 1039

practise law in Singapore, be encouraged to stay in Singapore. There will be less tension, depression and frustration amongst these people in Singapore.

On another note, our Government should do more for our lawyers. With the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), our Government should work with Malaysian authorities to allow our lawyers to be given a chance to practise in ASEAN countries, especially in Malaysia and Indonesia and also in countries like USA, England, Australia and Hong Kong.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. I will first take Prof. Chin's points on legal expertise and international disputes. I wish to make three points.

First, I would like to assure him and Members of the House that we take all these international legal proceedings and adjudications seriously because we attach importance to observance of international law. Let me say that we have excellent teams to deal with these issues, whether it is the Pedra Branca issue before the ICJ or reclamation before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Not only the AG's Chambers have a specialist unit in their International Affairs Division, but they have also enlisted the services of international lawyers and experts.

The second point I want to make is that to deal with these international cases, we not only need just good legal minds, but we also need the services of an array of people in other areas, ie, experts in allied subjects. For reclamation, we will need experts, for example, currents velocity and so on. Thirdly, it is not just the Ministry of Law, Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Attorney-General's Chambers, but many Government agencies have to be involved. I am glad

Column: 1040

to say that, having observed this first-hand, I am very satisfied with the way in which the different Government agencies are pulling together. If I may give an example. In the preparation for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) when Malaysia took us to international litigation on our reclamation, there was a true team Singapore effort by all the different agencies. The Attorney-General's Chambers, the Ministry of Law, the Ministry of National Development, URA, ENV and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs worked very closely as a team in the national interest. Prof. Tommy Koh, as we know, acted as the Agent before the Tribunal. Our Attorney-General personally represented Singapore, backed by an able team of lawyers. And now Second Deputy Secretary in MND, Mrs Cheong Koon Hean, acted as the Advocate.

In addition, we have never hesitated to use the services of well-known international lawyers and experts. I should add that we also plan ahead. Prof. Chin is right that we must develop the expertise in this area, and Attorney-General's Chambers' International Affairs Department does that. But there is also scope for other agencies, like the Faculty of Law. I know they have been improving their international law capabilities and competence and more subjects are being taught in that area. I am told that a specialised Master of Laws degree in International and Comparative Law is being offered in the Faculty.

To sum up, I am satisfied that the Government, through the AG and other agencies, are fully equipped to deal with the two current issues and we will have the capability to deal with any other future international legal litigation when it comes up.

On intellectual property, I take Prof. Chin's point that it is important to put in place capabilities to help our companies

Column: 1041

create and exploit IP. That is, in fact, the key priority of the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) which has organised many events to deepen the business community's appreciation of IP issues. It has partnered relevant bodies to bring across customised IP messages to different audiences. These partners include the Singapore Business Federation, the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce, European Patent Office, Japan Patent Office. The whole idea of this is to conduct many seminars, some 33 or so seminars and discussions, and they have been able to reach out to more than 3,000 people. I should also add that the IP Academy was launched last year. This was very timely because we have been able to train IT professionals and businessmen. They have conducted some 18 or so training programmes, which have covered over 1,400 participants. And to reach out to the younger group, IPOS targets educational institutions and has conducted some 60 events with secondary schools and polytechnics.

Prof. Chin has made an important point in asking whether we take into account Singapore's stage of development when we draft legislation or enhance existing IP legislation. The answer is yes, we do. We recognise that, precisely because of the recent difficult conditions, our businesses may not be fully able to invest in building up their IP capabilities.

On the other hand, we have to recognise that we operate in a very globalised economy and our businesses rely heavily on the external markets. Many of these markets have developed sophisticated IP regimes and their companies employ very savvy IP strategies. Therefore, to succeed, Sir, Singapore companies must be able to operate in these countries which are very advanced in their stage of IP development, for example, United States.

Column: 1042

It represents an important market for many of our companies and to succeed in the US, they have no choice but learn how to navigate the IP regime in the United States. This is a key priority for IPOS. It is because some of these companies may not be familiar to do what is necessary to protect and exploit the intellectual assets that IPOS formed an IP taskforce to help them understand how the field of IP is evolving and how they can take advantage of upcoming enhancements through Singapore's IP regime. The IP taskforce comprises business associations, such as the Association of Small and Medium Enterprise, the Singapore Business Federation and other organisations.

As regards the enhancement to the IP regime which I have mentioned, they will be introduced in this House in the coming months. I will not go into detail right now but to give you a few examples. One, we will strengthen our patent regime to protect bio-inventions and related R&D, specifically our patent legislation for bio-inventions like pharmaceuticals will be strengthened to recognise the significant investment and efforts required to develop pharmaceutical products. Also, we will encourage companies to explore more innovative ways to distinguish their products and their brands. For example, I am sure many of us recognise familiar sounds, such as Nokia's - which we occasionally hear in this Chamber - and Yahoo Yodel. These are examples of sound marks which are another form of trademark. We intend to table amendments to our law to give recognition to distinctive non-visual marks which will include sound marks.

On bankruptcy, Sir, I understand the points that Prof. Chin and Mr Yatiman have made. But before I go into our approach on bankrupticies, they asked for an update on bankruptcies. Sir, as at December 2003, we have about 18,600 undischarged bankrupts in Singapore. Mr

Column: 1043

Yatiman is quite correct. Statistics from 1996 show that some 90% of the bankruptcies from that period onwards are consumer bankrupticies arising mainly from the use of credit cards or credit facilities. The balance 10% are business bankruptcies. The reasons for the bankruptcies of different individuals are not easy to generalise and I would not conclude, as Mr Yatiman suggests, that all this is because of less than desirable lifestyle. Different people have different problems. Yes, some have not been able to manage their affairs and some have over-spent, and so on. I do not know about the example when he asked the question how an individual, earning $3,500, has so many credit cards and can chalk up $80,000 or so. We will have to ask him, and his creditors will be better able to explain. But hopefully, with the setting up of the Credit Bureau, financial institutions can make better decisions in future on whether to extend credit or not to individuals and how much credit to give. Also, I cannot off-hand tell him about the case of the celebrity, a professional whom he mentioned. If he wishes to pursue that, he can deal with that by filing a Question here.

The thrust of what Prof. Chin and Mr Yatiman have said really raises the question whether we need to change our bankruptcy law. I do not think it is a question of amending the bankruptcy law. It is how we administer the bankruptcy laws, ie, what sort of policies. Let me say that our approach to bankruptcies is to try to strike a balance between satisfying the legitimate interest of investors and creditors who naturally want to recover debts owed to them and, on the other hand, ensuring that we do not stifle entrepreneurship. It is a delicate balance between the interest of society in allowing bankrupts a second chance and the creditors who like a robust system to ensure maximum repayment. Of course,

Column: 1044

too liberal a bankruptcy regime will erode creditors' right whereas too rigid a regime will prevent bankrupts from making a fresh start.

What I want to stress is that our system does not allow any bankrupts an automatic free passage out of bankruptucy. The Official Assignee has the discretion to discharge only deserving bankrupts who have cooperated fully with him. We do treat cooperative bankrupts differently from those who are not cooperative. That must be so. So we have moved away sometime ago from the one-size-fits-all approach to bankruptcy administration. We categorise bankrupts who are cooperative and have a certain track, which we call the "green zone"

where they are subject to less restrictions and greater incentives for them to be cooperative and pay as much as they can. Uncooperative and recalcitrant bankrupts are categorised differently and they are put on a track called "red zone", where they are subject to more rigorous checks and closer monitoring, with the view to make sure that they do not believe that bankruptcy is a reward and a complete fool-proof way out of paying their debts.

5.15 pm

Yes, we recognise there is a rising trend in the number of debtors applying to the courts, on their own accord, to declare themselves bankrupt. Many of these self-petition bankrupts, Sir, act under the mistaken, and it is a mistaken, impression that by declaring themselves as bankrupts they would not have to repay their debts and would get an automatic discharge after three years. Let me say that this is not the case and the Official Assignee always makes it a point to let those who approach the Official Assignee with such an intention that he disabuses them of it.

Let me move on to the legal profession on the comments made by

Column: 1045

Prof. Chin and Mr Chandra Mohan. On errant lawyers, I fully share the concerns of Prof. Chin. Here, I want to say that I fully agree with the concerns of the Chief Justice made in his remarks at the opening of the Legal Year, about lawyers absconding with clients' money. Of course, when we view the number of people involved, in the context of the total number of lawyers in the profession, one could say that it is a small minority, and it is a small minority. But, unfortunately, this small minority gives the entire profession a very bad name and public trust and confidence in the legal profession is undermined. So, there is a public interest which is very important to protect. Like the Chief Justice, I prefer that the Law Society takes decisive measures to deal with this. I think it is better that the Society takes such sensible and responsible preventive measures instead of the Government having to step in and legislate, which we will, if the need arises and if the Society and the profession themselves fail to do.

So I am glad, and I support the efforts of the Law Society to curb this problem. You have read in the newspapers that the Law Society would have enacted measures last year, if not for opposition from a small group. But the Law Society now has, in fact, settled on the amendments to the Solicitors' Accounts Rules. They were approved by the Chief Justice on 3rd March 2004 and the Society will gazette the amendments to come into force on 1st April 2004. I will not go into the details of the scheme which has been publicised.

Let me say I also had a working lunch recently with the President of the Law Society and its key council members. They are clearly concerned with the problem, and I believe that they know that the profession itself has to take the lead in policing such delinquent lawyers.

Column: 1046

As to Prof. Chin's suggestion of doing another study, we have just done a comprehensive study on the legal profession and I do not think it is a great mystery as to why lawyers are leaving the legal profession. I touched on it last year. Various reasons were given - stress, they want something else, they want to do non-legal work, and so on. Many of the factors why they leave are not peculiar to the legal profession. It is reflective of modern Singapore. It affects other sectors of work and it is also reflective of the younger generation where changing a job after a while is nothing unusual. But we must ensure that there is a critical core of good legal talent in the legal profession.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair]

5.20 pm

Prof. Chin has asked how we can assist lawyers in weathering the storm of fiercer competition. I mentioned last year that we have accepted the recommendations of the Legal Services Working Group, chaired by Mr Shanmugam and Solicitor-General, Mr Chan Seng Onn. My Ministry oversees and coordinates the implementation of the Working Group's recommendations through a Legal Services Inter-agency Committee. This Inter-Agency Committee has mapped out a 3-pronged strategy to drive the development of the Legal Services sector. I should mention that, first, we intend to promote Singapore as an alternative dispute resolution centre in the region, focusing primarily on international arbitration. Second, to develop capability through improving the provision of continuing legal education. This, of course, the Law Society and the profession must take the lead. Third, to market our legal services abroad and to enlarge the playing field for our lawyers. I

Column: 1047

think this is one of the points touched by Mr Chandra Mohan. We will do our best to create as many opportunities as possible for our lawyers, but the lawyers and law firms also have to do their part in promoting and selling their services.

On the final point, Mr Chandra Mohan refers to section 38(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act. Many were not in this House when that section was amended in 1986. Let me recall that in 1986, we amended the Legal Profession Act (section 38(1)(c)) to make clear that where the section said that the Law Society is to assist the Government - one of the functions is to assist the Government - in all matters affecting legislation, we made it clear that it is legislation submitted to it. And that amendment was, in fact, restoring the language which had been there previously. Why did we amend in 1986? We did it because the then Law Society Council engaged in politicking and confronting the Government under the guise of assisting the Government. Now, Mr Chandra Mohan wants us to remove those words. Let me say I do not intend to do that. I do not see how it is affecting the dignity of lawyers if the Law Society Council does not have a carte blanche to make comments on all legislation . I do not see how the Law Society can claim a special statutory right which other societies do not have, as a body to make pronouncements on all legislation.

Having said that, let me make two points, Sir. Firstly, I have never declined to receive comments and suggestions from the Law Society on specific legislation, where it concerns the legal profession. In fact, I have always advised the Attorney-General to consult the Law Society on any legislative changes which affect the legal profession, and I will continue to do so. Secondly, I realise that

Column: 1048

in some specific legal areas, there are lawyers who are specialists and experts in various areas of law whose input can be very useful. Therefore, we have never hesitated to consult the Law Society where the views of these specialists and experts can be valuable. I will give you two recent examples: Land Titles (Amendment) Act in 2003 to introduce electronic lodgment of documents, and the recent amendments to the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act in 2003. And I will continue to do so. But, that is different from what Mr Chandra Mohan wants me to do - to amend the Legal Profession Act so that we can go back to the days of the 80s where the Law Society behaved like a political pressure group. The answer to that is no.

Community Mediation

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: **** Sir, I will deal with the issue of Community Mediation. Recently, the law was amended to confer a power on Magistrates to refer neighbour disputes to Community Mediation Centres, even if one of the parties does not consent. This is a bold move, and one, may I add, that makes mediation a form of dispute settlement somewhat more difficult. Non-consensual mediation does not often result in agreement. If we want to extend powers in this fashion, is it not time to extend the role of CMCs as well - to be a quasi-judicial in its approach - to empower mediators to issue, if necessary, administrative orders that would ensure peace and harmony in the neighbourhood?

When a neighbour is determined enough to go to court, it is likely that any referral to a CMC may fail, as parties at that time may be past talking about their dispute. We should consider giving such powers to mediators to see whether they can perform an administrative tribunal or quasi-judicial function in settling such disputes. At the same time, perhaps it is time to merge the settling of small

Column: 1049

commercial claims with that of the CMCs. There may no longer be any need for the role of the Small Claims Tribunal as such. The Ministry can therefore make better use of resources once they merge CMCs with the Small Claims Tribunal and set up, what I would call, "Community Dispute Settlement Centres" (CDSC).

Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast): Sir, I am not speaking because my points were covered by Prof. Chin.

Mr Heng Chee How (Jalan Besar): Sir, Singapore is a small compact society. We live tightly packed together and invariably there will be disputes that arise between neighbours. Traditionally, grassroots organisations, grassroots leaders, Government agencies like the HDB and Town Councils, do their part to try to help the neighbours to resolve their disputes. They are not always successful and, therefore, I fully support the development of mediation as a channel to assist in dispute resolutions, as opposed to letting our society move more and more towards litigation as the way to solve problems.

I would like to find out from the Minister what is the result of mediation as an approach in our mediation centres so far. What is the percentage of cases mediated that has actually resulted in resolution? I ask this because, to the extent that not all mediation succeeds even when mandated by the court, there could be some of the more difficult ones that take up a disproportionate amount of resources on the part of Government agencies. For example, they just go round and round without any resolution and the matter just gets worse and worse on the ground. In this connection, I support the idea of examining the role of our mediation centres to see whether or not it might be possible, in cases where they are protracted, and for which neither party is prepared to come to a consensus on the resolution, for some form of

Column: 1050

arbitration to take place, so that we can bring the matter to a close.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo (West Coast): Sir, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) awareness programme was launched last year to promote awareness of ADR options to the general public and specialised sectors, such as members of trade and industry-based organisations. Indeed, this was a commendable effort to encourage settlement of private disputes out of the arduous court process.

At this juncture, I would like to ask the Minister how he would assess the effectiveness of community mediation in Singapore. Can he say that indeed a culture of mediation has taken root in Singaporeans? Sir, as I understand it, the focus of the CMCs is on disputes involving neighbours and peers. Such disputes usually relate to assault and use of vulgarities arising from heated quarrels over use of common property or excessive noise. One observation on the shortcomings of the present community mediation centres is that they are aloof from the community. Why do I say this? I would like to support it with this example. Now, if two neighbours in, say, Lorong 17, Geylang, have a dispute and are referred to a mediator in, say, Marine Parade CMC, the nearest location, what sense of identity do they bring with them? Firstly, the mediator is a person unknown to these two neighbours. Who is he, the neighbours may wonder. This is important because the mediator must be a person of standing in the eyes of the party, as otherwise the mediator will not have the clout to extract concessions from them. In the good old days, the kampong headman who mediated in a dispute involving two fellow villagers was able to command the deference of the villagers simply by reason of his standing as the headman, a person whom the villagers looked up to and seek help and advice if they have a problem.

Column: 1051

Secondly, the location of the mediation centre is alien to the quarrelling parties. Would it not be more meaningful for the two quarrelling residents to go

to the local community club or the MPS, say, in Geylang West? If the dispute is between neighbours, then the forum to resolve such dispute must surely be in the neighbourhood of the parties.

5.30 pm

Sir, I would advocate for more grassroots and community leaders, who have some standing in the eyes of the parties, to be trained as mediators. This is one effective way where community mediation centres can reach out to the quarrelling parties, and not the other way round which would be less effective.

Sir, generally, the mentality of the average HDB heartlander is to see the MP or the grassroots leaders for advice or help whenever he has a problem. We must exploit this mentality so that the quarrelling parties will say, "Let's go to the MPS or see the grassroots leaders."

I would like to ask the Minister the following questions:

To what extent can we improve the accessibility of the mediation centres and the effectiveness of the mediators? Given that trust and confidence in the mediators are important considerations to disputing parties, is there a plan to mount more public and community education programmes on mediation via the schools and grassroots organisations? Lastly, how do we retain the voluntary service of the mediators?

The Chairman: May I remind Members to keep their speeches short?

Column: 1052

Small Claims Tribunal

Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani (Hong Kah): Sir, currently, the Small Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims not exceeding $10,000, where the claims relate to disputes arising from:

(1) a contract for the sale of goods; or

(2) a contract for the provision of services; or

(3) tortuous damage to property (not including motor vehicle accidents).

The original intent of the Tribunal was to provide a quick and inexpensive forum for the resolution of small claims between consumers and suppliers. I believe that we should expand the intent and jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

For instance, the Tribunal does not hear employment disputes. Where the employee earns less than $1,500 a month, he has a recourse to the Ministry of Manpower. However, if his salary exceeds that, even if his claim is less than $10,000, he has to bring his claim to the Subordinate Courts.

Similarly, the Tribunal does not hear disputes between landlord and tenant, or torts involving personal injury and others, even if the claims are less than $10,000.

In these cases, the claimant may not be able to bring the matter for resolution at the community mediation centres unless the other party consents. Can he not proceed in court? Yes, but our current Rules of Court require compliance of many procedures. Anecdotal evidence suggests that legal costs for pre-trial preparation alone, say, for a $50,000 claim, could easily range between $5,000 and $10,000. A claim, say, for $5,000, may entail the same kind of preparations

Column: 1053

and therefore the same but relatively much more prohibitive costs.

Sir, Singapore is positioning itself well as a forum for international arbitration and alternative dispute resolution. Our judicial system is among the most impartial and efficient in the world. To complete the loop, we must have in place a mechanism that facilitates the proper resolution or closure of local civil disputes. And in this respect, we ought not to assume that all small disputes are trivial.

May I ask whether the Minister is looking at the feasibility of expanding the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunal? Sir, since the Tribunal has been in existence since February 1985, may I also ask the Minister whether the Tribunal is making use of its accumulated body of case law to evolve certain guiding principles and to educate the public on them?

Legal Aid and Means Test

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, currently, the use of the means test in legal aid has meant that those who qualify will obtain legal counselling and assistance. Those who do not are left without the means to obtain such advice and assistance. There should be a graduated scheme which could require those with higher income to pay more for their legal costs while those in the lower income group or those who cannot afford at all and who have no income can obtain such services for free.

The DPM and Minister for Finance in his Budget speech had mentioned that more use should be made of the means test to control and distribute costs. Of course, he referred to the health costs rather than legal costs, but it is essentially the same type of service.

We should also see how the means test can be refined to allow more people

Column: 1054

at the margins to obtain legal advice, not for free, but based on how much they are able to pay.

Access to Justice

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Sir, I have previously asked in this House whether more can be done to improve public accessibility to justice. By this, I do not mean just having more lawyers, but making sure that we do not put ourselves in a position where only the rich have access to the judicial process, and hence justice. In his reply, the Minister gave the assurance that assistance given is adequate as the means test, which was revised recently, even allows someone who earns more than $1,000 to qualify for legal aid. Sir, I must confess that I am a little disappointed with the reply.

Before I go on, I would like to declare, once again for the record, that I am a practising lawyer and hence may have an interest in the outcome of my comment.

Sir, legal services are not cheap. Charges generally vary, based on the complexity of the matter and the standing of the lawyer concerned. Going to court to litigate a matter and to defend against a charge can set a person's finances back quite substantially. A three-day trial can easily set a party back by $10,000. If a man with a wife not working with two school-going children to feed, and not to mention aged parents to support, is barely making over $2,000 a month, how much savings do you think he will have? And how much more do you think he will have left over for legal expenses?

Compared to the budget we set aside for healthcare subsidy, our budget for legal aid seems miniscule indeed. Yet, both legal aid and medical well-being are a necessary part of a person's happiness. In Singapore, I have worked out the sums of the extent of legal aid to about $1.60 per head. Whereas if we compare that to

Column: 1055

Hong Kong, the extent of legal aid comes to about $12 per head. At the moment, we have a means test where you either qualify or you do not qualify for legal assistance or legal aid. I agree with my colleague's suggestion that perhaps a more flexible means test can be introduced to open up accessibility to justice for more Singaporeans in this regard.

Compensation in Criminal Cases

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the point I wish to raise is that the Government should compensate people for losses which they suffer if they are wrongly arrested or charged. I wish to clarify that I am referring here to those cases where a suspect is factually innocent, which means that he did not commit a crime or the offence in question. For instance, a person may have been prosecuted for cheating, but it turns out that he is not guilty because he had a good explanation in defence for what he did. I am not talking about situations where cases are dropped, because witnesses are reluctant to testify or on technicalities. These people may not be factually innocent.

A person wrongly arrested or charged will suffer losses, both financial and non-financial. His financial losses will include loss of income when he is detained and the cost of employing a lawyer to defend him. His non-financial losses will include loss of freedom, loss of reputation, humiliation and psychological stress, etc.

I understand that under our existing civil law, a person can claim damages by taking a suit against the Government for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. However, I also understand that it is very difficult to succeed, because the burden on the plaintiff is very high. He has to show that the police had no grounds to arrest, but that is nearly

Column: 1056

impossible as police powers in Singapore are very wide. It is also nearly impossible to prove that the police or prosecution acted deliberately in bad faith, which is also required to win such a suit.

Sir, the Workers' Party believes in justice for all and has, for many years, proposed a system for compensation. I think such a compensation scheme will also have the effect in making the police more careful in exercising arresting powers. I also understand that such a right to compensation has been studied and adopted internationally, and is recognised in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Chairman: Mr Chandra Mohan, you may take both cuts together.

Legislative Amendments

Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair: **** Sir, our Ministry of Law, together with the legal fraternity, perhaps should review the names of some pieces of legislation every five years or so. For example, we have the Women's Charter. The name perhaps should be changed as it is not a Charter for women. It is also a piece of legislation for children, men and even their families and relatives. Perhaps we could call it either the Family Charter or the Matrimonial Proceedings Act. The relevant bodies could look into the matter with a view to amendment.

Another example is the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. It is actually a misnomer, as this is not a temporary provision. It is a permanent feature of our statute books to detain undesirable elements in our society, including secret society members, drug offenders, etc, without trial. Perhaps it could be called the Criminal Detention Act or the Criminal Detention (Special Provisions) Act. Although I do understand the fact that it is temporary provisions, it is because

Column: 1057

every five years we come back to Parliament to get an endorsement to renew and make it effective every five years or so.

Sir, I am sure there are many other statutes with names which could be amended, and perhaps the Attorney-General's Chambers could be tasked to look into this and they could work closely with the legal fraternity to come up with sound proposals.

Right to Counsel

The other matter is right to counsel. In our system of criminal justice, there appears to be no right to a lawyer, ie, counsel, for a person arrested until police investigations are completed. Why not? Is this an ideal state of affairs? If one were to be arrested, the first thing he wants is to contact his family members and/or his lawyers. Why is there a stumbling block amongst the police to refuse this aspect of human rights? I would urge the Government to review this restriction.

The various stages in the criminal process include police arrest, investigation, recording of statements from potential witnesses and arrested persons under the Criminal Procedure Code, charged in court and right to counsel. The right to counsel comes a little too late. It may be too late for the accused. This perhaps should be changed and counsel should be allowed to see a person once he is arrested.

For poorer people, Sir, access is available, but the only thing is that it is a bit late. And these avenues that are available include the criminal legal aid of the Law Society. In capital cases in the High Court, we have assigned cases where the Registrar of the Supreme Court, in other words, the State, provides legal counsel to accused persons in capital cases.

Column: 1058

In civil matters also, it is good that we have the Legal Aid Bureau under the Legal Aid and Advice Act. Perhaps I could suggest that, in terms of right to counsel in those instances, we could expand the areas covered besides that of road accidents, industrial accidents, divorce, probate and administration, and the like. Perhaps the State could afford to expand it so that poorer people would have better access to justice in other areas of law.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, first, I would take the cuts on community mediation. I want to thank the Members who have spoken on this topic. I think their speeches reflect the recognition that community mediation is important and has a role to play in ensuring that urbanised compact Singapore will have their relational and community disputes on the ground settled in a way that will promote good neighbourliness.

The Members have asked for an update on how community mediation has progressed. In particular, Mdm Ho has asked whether or not there is a culture of mediation on the ground. Let me just update Members on some of the key points.

As Members know, community mediation was introduced in 1998, about 4-5 years ago. Today, three out of four cases mediated at the CMCs are successfully resolved. I think Mr Heng asked for some statistics. CMCs have successfully mediated more than 1,400 cases so far. Last year, CMCs mediated 342 cases compared to 120 in 1998. Of course, we do not take joy in there being more cases. But I think the fact that there are cases out there means that we have to do more to make community mediation more well-known and acceptable on the ground.

Part of making community mediation more acceptable and also instilling a culture is this whole question of

Column: 1059

awareness. Mdm Ho also asked how we create more awareness. I think that is an excellent point because community mediation may be new to some people, and some of them may have misperceptions as to how it works. Hence, one target area that we have been working on is to make community mediation more well-known on the ground through activities like road shows and talks in schools. In addition to this, we have also made community mediation more accessible. I think this is the point that Mdm Ho also made. She cited examples of people travelling very far to go for mediation, and that is why, over the last 2-3 years, we have established satellite venues. There are about eight of them now and they are all established in appropriate community clubs or community centres. In this way, we hope to replicate, as Mdm Ho suggested, the days of old when the ketua kampong, or the village headman, would mediate disputes in his own area.

Another point that Mdm Ho asked is how we take care of volunteers. In fact, this is a recurring theme of her speeches in Parliament, which I think is very important because that is the key of our community mediation efforts. It is based on stout hearted, committed, passionate and trained volunteers who are prepared to give time to ensure that the process works. Hence, basically, the short answer is that we do recognise their efforts. We provide them training. This is important

and also a sense of fulfillment through, for example, accreditation and also recognising them, for example, as master mediators. Hence, out of a group of 152 mediators, there are now 62 who are master mediators.

5.45 pm

Mdm Ho also suggests that we should tap the grassroots leaders even more.

Column: 1060

This is something that we are working on. We are getting more grassroots leaders to come forward to train as mediators. This point is important because Prof. Chin, in his speech, mentioned the situation where if we try to get the parties to talk after the dispute has been boiling for some time, it is difficult. He called it a bold move on the part of MinLaw in introducing amendments to the CMC Act, making it compulsory for parties to go for mediation if required by the magistrate. But that is after the complaint has been lodged. I fully agree with him. That is why we are working towards a scheme which we call the "Persuader Scheme". This is where one party has lodged the complaint but the other party refuses to come. And I think this is the nub of many of the frustrations on the ground. Then what do we do? Instead of just waiting for the other party to come forward or writing to him a letter that, to him, may not make sense, we are training grassroots leaders to be involved in the scheme, to visit and persuade, and to try to change any wrong impressions that any person may have of the entire process. So let us see how that works.

Currently, this is the approach that we are taking. We are also strengthening the referral schemes. We have several sources of referral, including the Police and the Multi-Door Court-house, HDB, CDCs and Family Service Centres. So I think it is important that all these referral sources should see the CMCs as the focus, the first stop should neighbours have problems, or family members have problems, or stallholders have problems. It has been reflected to me also the frustrations of residents who may think that they are being pushed from pillar to post. So we want to strengthen the referral system. We want to work with grassroots leaders to strengthen the Persuader Scheme. I share this in response to what Prof. Chin and Mr Heng have suggested, whether we should do more now to change the entire structure

Column: 1061

of CMCs. I would say we should not do more now because we recognise that CMCs started with a specific purpose. They were to parallel the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) system. Small Claims Tribunal would take care of small commercial claims on the ground and there would be adjudicatory function for the SCT.

But CMCs, on the other hand, would take care of relational and community disputes where the primary task would be to mediate. So we can see that there is a difference in treatment, and rightly so. Because for CMCs, we are talking about neighbours and family members who have continuing relationships. To adjudicate would mean that you have, in a sense, to find out who is at fault. You have to do more than just trying to bring the parties together. Merging the functions will save resources, and it makes sense from an organisational point of view. I think in terms of achieving the objectives of these two parallel systems, we should, what the Chinese say, san si , think very hard before we do that. So let us see how these improvements work out first before we do something as revolutionary as that.

The next point is legal aid. Legal aid is a recurrent theme in this House, and quite rightly so, because Members are concerned that Singaporeans should have the means whereby their disputes can be settled. The first point I want to make is that the way we have developed alternative dispute resolution processes helps Singaporeans to have different avenues to ventilate their disputes. In fact, over the past two or three years, not just the CMCs, but also the Singapore Mediation Centre, the Small Claims Tribunal as well, and also many industry-based mediation services have surfaced, including Insurance Dispute Resolution Organisation (IDRO), Association of Banks of Singapore and the Consumers' Association.

Column: 1062

So the first point I want to make is that, when we talk about access to justice, we should see it in a larger context. Yes, access to justice in the courts is important, being helped by the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) to have your problems aired in the court is important. But really we want to help Singaporeans see that there are also other viable means of settling their disputes. So that is the first key point.

The other point is that we are not deaf to the pleas of many MPs that we should always constantly be mindful of whether the means test is serving its purpose. I want to assure the House that, over the past 20 years, we had amended the means test several times, and the last time was only about 2½ years ago. We amended the means test and now the income is $10,000 and the capital is $7,000. Actually, a family of four where the father works, with two children, the wife does not work, if he has an income of about $2,000, because of the allowance scheme, he will still qualify for legal aid. I think that is not bad.

I want to assure Members that while we will continue to monitor the means test, let us not rush into raising it every time we feel that more Singaporeans need aid. We should not forget that, however we raise it, there will always be people who are cut off, at least the group of people that Prof. Chin and Mr Sin in a way have heartfelt concerns for. But these people are not bereft of any help. Because I am happy to say that we have got other people with the good hearts out there. So, for example, if a case like that happens in the LAB, LAB officials will be helpful, sometimes counselling can be given. And if the person really needs more specific help, they will provide the person with a list of voluntary welfare organisations to whom the applicant, who does not get aid, can turn to.

Column: 1063

I know, for example, of one quite recently, the Tanjong Pagar Family Service Centre now has a scheme, and it is on the website, where they administer pro bono legal assistance scheme, providing legal assistance, for an honorarium, to those who do not qualify for legal aid and are unable to afford the services of private lawyers. So I think that is wonderful. This is a situation where VWOs out there are given the opportunities and space to complement what the Government is doing. And, indeed, the Law Society is also considering ways in which they can help people like that. Because I understand the Law Society is currently working on a new scheme called "Law Help", to extend help to deserving applicants in civil matters. This scheme would first target voluntary welfare organisations doing charitable work, matching those who need legal advice and help with law firms who could do the work on a pro bono basis. In time, building on the experience with "Law Help" and its criminal legal aid scheme, the Law Society hopes to construct a model to enable representation of people in family matters who do not meet the means test for Government legal aid. But I understand that this is currently at a preliminary stage.

So let us see things in context. We cannot compare medical subsidies with legal aid. Everybody in Singapore would need medical aid, but not everybody would need legal aid. So I think the comparison Mr Sin makes is not quite on, although of course he makes it in a heartfelt way.

Mr Chandra Mohan suggests giving the legal aid even to criminal accused persons. We have argued this out before in this House as to whether we should extend the state-assisted scheme where now only those who are facing capital

Column: 1064

charges would be given legal representation, two counsels in fact. We have said quite clearly in this House that it would be inconsistent. On one hand, the State decides to charge somebody for wrongdoing, and when we do that, I think Mr Mohan knows that there is a very careful process that before even a charge is levied, both in terms of the investigation process and also the prosecution process, the decision is that this is a case in the public interest ought to be prosecuted and which the State would devote resources to securing a conviction within the law, of course, then it would be incongruous for the State to say, "All right, we will also provide you with aid, either assigned counsel or with criminal legal aid, for you to fight the charge." So let us not do that.

But of course, Mr Mohan knows that CLAS (Criminal Legal Aid Scheme) under the Law Society does a wonderful work. And we should again continue to promote that. It is a win-win situation where lawyers in town, particularly, younger ones, can do pro bono work. We talked about, for example, the image of lawyers earlier on. Prof. Chin mentioned the point about a few lawyers slurring the name of the legal profession. I think the CLAS is a wonderful scheme, where particularly young lawyers can enhance the image of the Law Society. And we do not give aid from the State. But Prof. Jayakumar, myself and others in the legal fraternity, we play golf and do other things, to help the lawyers raise funds. So we should leave it at that.

Mr Low Thia Khiang asked whether we should have a criminal compensation scheme. I think he is talking about people who are arrested and then detained during investigations and, after some time, they are released, not those who are charged. Because we have answered this second point before that for people who are charged in court and then acquitted, should we compensate them. I think we

Column: 1065

have explained in this House that because of the burden of proof being so high, beyond a reasonable doubt, any accused who can cast a reasonable doubt on a prosecution's case will be acquitted. It does not necessarily follow that he or she is innocent. Whilst the law is such that he has succeeded to free himself of the charge, it should not be the case that we should then give a compensation to these people.

As for the other group of people who are arrested by Police, I would like to let Mr Low know - I am sure now that he has got the help of lawyers he knows already - that under the law, the Police can only hold a suspect for 48 hours. Beyond that, the Police has to produce the suspect in court and the court will then give an order to continue detaining the suspect. I am told that, in most cases, the Police in fact can complete the investigations within 48 hours. So the Police will not just willy-nilly ask for an extension. If we require Police in such cases, if it decides after very full and complete investigations that the person will not be charged to compensate him, then it will hinder the Police in its work. And it will not be in the public interest because then our crime rates will not be the same. Police will then think very carefully before even picking up a person for questioning. Ultimately, like Prof. Jayakumar says, it is the people that run the system. I think the facts speak for themselves. People who come here know that we operate an honest system. The Mercer poll, not just by Singaporeans, but worldwide, 1½ years ago rated Singapore very highly, in terms of law and order, and the Police's honesty, competence, have also come through very well. Let us leave the Police to do its job, and not introduce this new scheme.

Mr Ahmad Khalis has asked whether we can extend the scope for the Small Claims Tribunal. Over the years, just like

Column: 1066

legal aid, we have actually extended the Small Claims Tribunal's ambit. But this is an ongoing exercise. So I want to assure him that, as he has made some suggestions as to some areas where we may want to see how we can enhance the SCT's reach, we will consider his suggestion. In fact, if he has any suggestions, he can let me know. Because the SCT is indeed playing a key role in this overall scheme that I have talked about, that of helping Singaporeans to have greater access to justice. For example, in 2002, there were 40,132 claimants who went before the SCT, up from 37,000 in the year 2001. But when we examine whether or not to extend the scope, I think Mr Khalis will know that if contracts are too complex, if they require close examination of legal issues or legislation, then they may not fit the bill as one that comes within the SCT. Because with the SCT, it is an informal process. We will take some care in enhancing the scope without changing the nature of the SCT. Whether or not the SCT is reaching out,

in terms of building up its jurisprudence and principles, I think the SCT has only so far four or five cases ventilated in the courts. But, internally, it is building up its own corpus of jurisprudence. Also, there are lots of informational pamphlets which are being distributed and made available. I understand also that periodic visits are made to the SCT by students.

6.00 pm

The Chairman: Assoc. Prof. Ho, you have only one minute left.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, Mr Chandra Mohan's two specific points were: change the names of the Women's Charter and the CLTPA. Actually, he is filing the wrong cuts, because these are not under the Ministry of Law. Just because it is a change in nomenclature of the law does not mean that we answer

Column: 1067

for it, but I took pains to check with the relevant Ministries. I have been told by MCDS that for the Women's Charter, the Women's Charter is just fine. Let us not change it to the Family Charter, because the Women's Charter is very acceptable and people know it. Indeed, the main focus of the Women's Charter is women and children. So, let us not change a good thing.

As for the CLTPA, indeed, it is a temporary provision, because every five years we will come before the House. We will come before the House again later this year, and it is best to leave it as that, because it is a reminder to all of us that this detention without trial under the CLTPA is a departure from the normal court process. So, it is better for MHA, when we work the Act, to be mindful of that, and also when we come before the House to explain why the Act needs to be enacted. So, let us leave it as that.

The Chairman: Assoc. Prof. Chin, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

The Chairman: Amendment No. 2. Mr Ravindran.

Use of State Land

Mr R Ravindran (Marine Parade): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Column: 1068

Sir, in land-scarce Singapore, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), as the keeper of the main component of land in Singapore, has a duty to ensure that land is easily made available to the public for community use rather than letting it being idle. I would like to ask the Minister whether SLA can do the following:

(1) set up a website of all the empty land that can be used by the public, in particular for sports activities;

(2) put up signboards on public land when it is ready to be used, so that the public will know readily that it can be used for community purposes;

(3) level such public land so that they can be used for community or sports events; and

(4) offer such land to both community organisations and private companies, so that they can take up sponsorship to put up sports facilities for temporary use by the community or public.

Land Acquisition Act

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I would like to speak on the amendment to the Land Acquisition Act.

Sir, the subject was already debated in this House on 15th August 2003, when I brought up the case of the compulsory acquisition of the 2,000 square feet piece of land belonging to the Faith Assembly of God Church. The compensation paid by the Chief Valuer's Office was $1. The Senior Minister of State justified the $1 compensation under the existing law and the principles of valuation. However, if we just look only at the $1 compensation on its own for a 2,000 square feet piece of land acquired, it would not look right. Just because that piece of land was zoned for road use under the law, it was deemed to have no value to the

Column: 1069

landowner and was only paid a nominal sum of $1.

Sir, the consequence of the law in this instance can be an absurdity. How can a 2,000 square feet piece of land, about the size of land of a terrace house is normally built on, be only worth $1? I call on the Government to amend the law as soon as possible to make right for cases like the one cited above, so that compensation paid to the landowners may be a fair market value. Meanwhile, I would ask the Senior Minister of State to reconsider the case I cited and to pay the owners a fair market rate of compensation.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I thank both Mr Ravindran and Mr Chiam for their cuts, in particular, Mr Ravindran. I think it is a favourite topic of his, fighting on behalf of many residents who want more land. Over the years, we have heeded the call, because we have made more land available, including one in his constituency which it has been using very well for football and other activities. But we will continue to be proactive and make more land available. Indeed, one or two key measures have been implemented, eg, the reduction of TOL fees - I think all of us in this House will rejoice about that - by 70% from the market rates in 2000 and, now, by another 15%, giving a total discount of 85%.

Mr Ravindran talked about the portal. We have the State Properties Information Online (SPIO) set up in 2002 to make information on state properties easily available and accessible to all. In October 2002, SLA added an additional feature to enhance the portal's usefulness. This is a dedicated website to facilitate applications by Community Development Councils and Constituency Offices to use vacant state land for community and social purposes. Indeed, there are also plans to enhance this even further, because we are going to have SLA working on a public e-query

Column: 1070

facility that will allow online checks on land ownership and managing agents for Government-owned land parcels. So, this will be a consolidated information that people can log in to find out how they can use the land.

Mr Ravindran talked about the signs on the fields. I think Members will know that SLA has indeed heard the feedback. Instead of the no-trespassing sign that dots a lot of our fields all over the island, for those lands that are in the HDB residential areas and which are deemed to be playable, we have replaced those signs to the effect that residents can go on to the land. But, of course, they must do so at their own risk. We cannot be guarantors of their safety. When they use these lands, residents must, of course, take care. So, that will make more land available. Together with what SLA has done with the SSC and MOE, collaborative efforts to open up more school fields and also new playing fields at the Turf Club at Marina South, Singaporeans on a Sunday, whether morning, afternoon or evening, when they drive around the whole of Singapore, will find many people out there playing all kinds of games, including football.

Mr Chiam asked about this case that we discussed in Parliament in August last year. He said that it did not look right. In fact, when I shared in this House, I said that the Minister and I also looked at it and felt it was not right that the owners should be paid $1, and that we were relooking at how we could do more. So, I am happy to say that after looking at the case in some detail and talking to the owners, now the owners have been paid much more than $1. So, they are happy, I hope Mr Chiam is happy, and certainly we are happy. Indeed, there will be other owners who would be paid $1. Let us not make any bones about it. As I explained last year in Parliament, there are three or four established categories where $1 will be paid, and these are based on

Column: 1071

sound valuation principles, including, for example, odd-lots, small backlanes and splay corners or situations where the landowner has already vested the front part for road purposes and then had benefited because of transferred higher GFA. So, these will continue to be paid $1.

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $112,710,840 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $331,815,600 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.