CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Column: 2792

CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

5.15 pm

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill before the House contains six amendments. The first amendment relates to the Accounting and

Column: 2793

Corporate Regulatory Authority. The second amendment concerns the transfer of reserves between entities governed by the Protection of Reserves Framework. The third amendment has to do with the Personnel Boards of the Public Service Commission. The fourth amendment deals with Singapore's contribution to the International Development Association (IDA). The fifth amendment pertains to grant of citizenship by descent, and the sixth amendment, pertaining to Article 22P, is technical in nature.

Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority

Mr Speaker, Sir, I turn first to the amendment pertaining to the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority. Currently, under Article 18, the Chairman of the Public Accountants Board is a member of the Presidential Elections Committee. As the Public Accountants Board was merged with the Registry of Companies and Businesses to form the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) on 1st April 2004, Article 18 is amended by changing the reference from the Chairman of PAB to the Chairman of ACRA.

Transfer of reserves

Mr Speaker, Sir, I turn now to the amendment relating to the transfer of reserves. Currently, Article 22B and Article 22D of the Constitution enable the transfer of reserves from

Column: 2794

Fifth Schedule statutory boards and Fifth Schedule Government companies to the Government, and between Fifth Schedule statutory boards, without such transfer being regarded as a draw on their past reserves. The Constitution, however, has no provision to enable similar transfers of reserves from the Government to Fifth Schedule statutory boards and Fifth Schedule Government companies, and between Fifth Schedule statutory boards and Fifth Schedule Government companies, without such transfer being regarded as a draw on their reserves.

Putting in place a more comprehensive framework for transfer of reserves between protected entities will enable more timely responses by the Government to changing economic or business conditions. For example, reserves may need to be transferred from the Government to new Fifth Schedule statutory boards and Fifth Schedule Government companies quickly to seize opportunities in new areas of growth and existing Fifth Schedule statutory boards and Fifth Schedule Government companies may need to be restructured, merged or corporatised to better deliver public services and manage Government assets.

Article 22B and Article 22D are therefore amended, and a new article 148I is inserted to complete the framework for the different transfers of reserves between protected entities.

The President has been consulted and agrees with the above amendments of the Bill.

Personnel Board

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move now to the third amendment. This pertains to allowing every Personnel Board to delegate its authority to any of its members.

The functions of the Public Service Commission (PSC) were devolved to a system of Personnel Boards by constitutional amendments in 1994. To facilitate decision-making, Personnel Boards often assign individual members the authority to decide on the appointment, confirmation and emplacement, promotion and transfer of the public officers under the Boards' purview. However, as the assigned member is only acting on behalf of the Board, the Board's covering approval is required.

Column: 2795

Consequently, each and every decision made by an assigned member on the appointment, confirmation and emplacement, promotion and transfer of an officer has to be circulated to all the other Board members for confirmation. If there are no objections after a certain timeframe set by the Board, the Board is regarded as having approved and adopted the member's decision as its own.

This practice is increasingly impractical. For Personnel Boards that look after large Ministries like the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Home Affairs, Board members receive many submissions each month on appointments, confirmations and transfers of officers, mostly straightforward, for their approval. The covering approval of the Board has become a formality and, in effect, has no material impact, as the decisions of the assigned members have consistently followed the Public Service Division's approved rules on such matters. Since 1995, no Board member has raised an objection to any decision taken by an assigned member, because there was no reason to do so as long as the rules have been followed.

Article 110D of the Constitution is therefore amended to include three new clauses to empower each Personnel Board to delegate, in writing and subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, its powers to any of its members. The Board's member must exercise that power in accordance with the terms of the delegation. Any act or thing done by the delegate of a Personnel Board will have the same force and effect as if it had been done by the Personnel Board.

After the amendment, any deviation from the approved rules and any adverse decisions will continue to be considered by the entire Board and the powers of the delegated member will be limited to following the rules laid down by PSD.

Column: 2796

International Development Act

Mr Speaker, Sir, I next move on to the fourth amendment, and this pertains to the International Development Act. The IDA Act is being amended to allow the Minister to make contributions other than membership subscriptions to the IDA, which is a World Bank lending facility for poverty reduction programmes. To do this, it is also necessary to amend Article 144(3) of the Constitution to add the IDA Act to the list of Acts for other international organisations, so that future IDA contributions can similarly be made using Article 144(1)(b) of the Constitution.

Under Article 144(1)(b), the Government is allowed to make guarantees or raise loans, with the President's concurrence, to the list of statutes under Article 144(3). With this amendment, we will standardise our procedures for contributing to the IDA with those applicable to other international organisations.

Citizenship

Mr Speaker, Sir, lastly, I move on to the fifth amendment. This pertains to relaxing the restrictions on grant of citizenship by descent and increasing the length of time a person may spend away from Singapore when considering the residence period for citizenship applications.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Articles in the Constitution on the grant of citizenship have largely remained unchanged since the 1960s. However, the world today is very different compared to then. Growing numbers of Singaporean men and women are travelling overseas to work, study or pursue their personal goals and starting their families abroad. Between 2000 and 2002, the number of foreigners who were granted Permanent Residence under the sponsorship of their Singaporean spouse increased from about 4,000 to almost 5,800, ie, within a space of just two

Column: 2797

years. The number of foreign-born children granted citizenship has also gone up by 41% just over a decade, from about 1,900 in 1991 to about 2,700 in 2003.

The Ministry of Home Affairs reviewed our citizenship laws last year. We studied the laws of other countries like the United Kingdom, which had addressed these issues. The Remaking Singapore Committee had also separately recommended that the provisions on the grant of Singapore citizenship to a foreign-born child be made gender neutral. Let me now highlight the key amendments in this Bill.

Grant of citizenship by descent

I shall first touch on the grant of citizenship by descent. Article 122 of the Constitution governs the grant of citizenship by descent to a child of a Singaporean, when the child is born abroad. The child is conferred citizenship by descent as a matter of right if the parent applies within one year of the child's birth. Currently, a child is entitled to citizenship by descent only when the father is a Singaporean who is a citizen by birth or registration. It does not apply when the father is a Singapore citizen by descent, or when it is the mother who is a Singaporean. Female Singaporeans can only pass on citizenship by registration to their foreign-born child, and citizenship by registration is not conferred as a matter of right.

The amendments to Article 122 will, firstly, allow female Singaporeans to pass on citizenship by descent to their foreign-born child. This will make the grant of citizenship by descent gender neutral. Sections 12 and 15 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution will be amended consequentially to bring them in line with the gender parity introduced in Article 122(1).

Column: 2798

Secondly, the amendments will allow Singaporean parents who acquired their Singapore citizenship by descent to pass on citizenship by descent to their foreign-born children, if these parents meet a residency criterion. They have to have stayed in Singapore for a total of five years or more before the birth of the child. Alternatively, they have to have stayed in Singapore for a total of at least two years out of the five years prior to the birth of the child, which is similar to the criterion used for determining Singaporean's eligibility to vote overseas. Currently, a Singaporean who was born abroad and acquired citizenship by descent, then grew up and worked in Singapore, then happened to have a child born abroad while he is temporarily overseas, cannot transmit his citizenship to the child by descent. This is unfair. The amendment overcomes this problem, but it imposes a residency requirement on the parent, so that we will not have generations of absentee Singaporeans with no real links to Singapore.

Increase in absence period

Next, increase in absence period. Currently, permanent residents need to meet a residential requirement before they can qualify to be citizens. Section 16 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution allows a person to be away from Singapore for up to six months when calculating the period of residence. Recognising that more of our citizens and permanent residents have to travel in the course of their work or study, the Government proposes to increase this to 12 months. For example, Article 123(2) of the Constitution provides that the wife of a Singaporean must be resident in Singapore for at least two years before she may obtain Singapore citizenship. With the amendment, she can now be overseas for up to one year during the 2-year qualifying period and still be eligible for citizenship.

Column: 2799

I should stress that citizenship is a privilege that should not be taken for granted. Even with the proposed amendments, Singaporeans living and working overseas must make the effort to ensure that they and their children remain rooted and committed to Singapore. All Singaporeans, whether here or abroad, must continue to have a stake and share in the responsibility for the nation's success and future.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Mr Speaker, Sir, as a woman MP, I am greatly heartened by this Bill which, among other weighty constitutional changes, permits the child born overseas to a Singaporean mother to be deemed a Singapore citizen. This has been the subject of some unhappiness in the past. The previous position of conferring citizenship by descent only on the children of a Singaporean father was gender-biased. Why the distinction? Do women contribute any less to the well-being of the country? On what basis do we implicitly conclude that the child of a couple with a Singaporean mother only is any less Singaporean in soul than one born to a Singaporean father? Why should the privilege be given on one side but not the other? The argument then was that ours is a patrilineal society, that the father is often the sole breadwinner and, just as the child adopts the surname of the father, so the nationality of the child must follow that of the father. I am therefore delighted that, as the Minister for Home Affairs had explained in the recent Budget debate, the Government is aware that times have changed. Our society is still patrilineal, but the wheel is turning, gently but also perceptibly.

With the recent debate on procreation spotlighting the dilemma of the modern women, this amendment goes some way

Column: 2800

towards equalising the official treatment of the two sexes in Singapore. I do not have the statistics, but it is observed and as has just been pointed out by DPM and Minister for Finance, that cases of Singaporean women marrying foreign spouses are on the increase. Moreover, very often, they belong to the better educated classes. An increasing number of these more qualified women have been unable to find suitable partners here because of educational mismatch and the marrying-down syndrome among Singaporean men. Therefore, pragmatically speaking, denying such families the right of citizenship for their children born overseas could represent a big loss to Singapore's already limited talent pool. Now that national boundaries have become so porous and we face a precipitous shortage of population to make our economic survival assured over the next 30 to 40 years, the larger perspective is that our

citizenship critieria should be more inclusive rather than exclusive. Hence, our open policy towards foreign talent, some of whom we hope, like Alain Vandenborre, originally from Belgian, author of a fascinating book called "Proudly Singaporean", will become citizens and contribute towards our nation-building. But as we open our arms to foreign talents who come to our shores, we should not forget the sons and daughters of those already from our shores, even if the blood that crosses to their overseas children's veins is mixed.

Sir, as Minister Lim Hng Kiang's Committee debates the issues about making citizenship count more, this amendment has come none too soon. It is also good that there is a residency requirement for the parent who is Singaporean by descent, so that there is at least some familiarity with the land to which he or she is linked. Hopefully, those years will be sufficient to endear this country to his or her heart and deepen the bonds to the land to the next generation.

Column: 2801

Sir, with this, I am very pleased to support the amendment.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I support the amendment to Article 122 of the Constitution to allow children born overseas to Singaporean mothers to acquire citizenship by descent.

Sir, this is a long overdue amendment. It accords the same value of citizenship to both father and mother. This is fair and it is a good move. My concern is about children born overseas whose parents are themselves Singapore citizens by descent. Under the proposed amendments, such parents will now qualify to have their children acquire Singapore citizenship provided that the parents have resided in Singapore either for a total of five years before the child is born or for at least two of the five years preceding the child's birth. Such parents were not born in Singapore. They may have just come back after reaching 21 to take the Oath of Allegiance and stay away for most of their lives. They may not know much about Singapore nor have they made contribution to the nation, except male citizens who have to perform National Service and reservist duty. With these amendments, such persons can also pass on Singapore citizenship to their children who are born to parents who hardly have connection with Singapore. Is this a desirable situation?

In 1985, the Government saw it fit to amend Article 135 of the Constitution to give itself powers to deprive Singaporeans of their citizenship if they live in another country for 10 years without returning. This applies even to citizens who are Singaporeans by birth. The rationale given in Parliament then by the Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law was, and I quote him, that there were persons who "for all practical purposes, had migrated with no intention

Column: 2802

of ever returning to Singapore. They have grown up in an alien environment. They have not contributed anything to our economic development. Claiming to have been born in Singapore, they now want to come back, be recognised as citizens with all the rights and privileges and to enjoy the fruits of the labour of those Singaporeans who remain in Singapore. Quite clearly, those who have no skills or no family roots would have problems adjusting to our society and our way of life."

Is it not a concern then, even more applicable, where neither the person nor even his parents were born in Singapore after the amendment has taken place? By mooting the present amendment, is the Government not contradicting itself on those principles?

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Sir, for at least a decade, the women in this House, past and present, have advanced various arguments to amend the Constitution so that its provisions are gender neutral. I am glad that at long last, this is coming to pass.

Sir, I do not want to sound churlish, but I think it is important to be clear on what is the principle that is guiding us in making this significant amendment today. Is it out of pragmatism because of changing circumstances, economic imperatives, declining birth rate, a trend of Singaporeans marrying foreigners, migration patterns, or is it something more fundamental that this past discrimination against women should be redressed as all citizens should be treated equally under the Constitution? I am not saying that the other factors should be discounted, but they should be contributing factors and not the deciding factors.

Sir, we need debates like this to remind us that when Singapore was founded, the vision of our founding leaders was to create a fair, just and equal

Column: 2803

society and a better society for all. This is the original Singapore Dream. The idea that guided us through the early days of the Republic is the vision that has brought millions of immigrants, myself included, to a land where a better life is possible and to eventually want to become Singaporeans. Equality is a value that is fundamental to our national identity and hence to be defended and promoted vigorously.

Sir, when we come across any policy or legislation that goes against this fundamental principle, our response must be to take the moral high ground and to raise a red flag - in our case, a red and white flag - and to rectify without undue delay. This sense of equality must be so ingrained in our national psyche that when we recite our national pledge, "to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality", it should resonate deeply, as it reflects our daily realities.

Sir, very often, however, we are told that we live in a patriarchal society and I dread raising this again because I can imagine the sighs of this House. But I would just like to caution against using such cultural arguments to justify any unequal treatment of our citizens. In the long run, people will not accept that citizenship can be fully practised other than among equals. When we now say today, "We, the people of Singapore" in our national pledge, we do not think of ourselves as women or men, but as equal citizens and that is necessary for a full sense of belonging.

Today marks an important step and milestone, a positive step forward for equality in Singapore. We know that the group of Singaporean women benefiting from this change is small, but the symbolic value is enormous for all of us as equal citizens of Singapore. Sir, for real advancement, however, these steps need to be placed on top of each other, with the sure-footedness of one acting on principle and out of conviction and not steps scattered haphazardly over the landscape

Column: 2804

as and when opportunity knocks or the winds change direction.

And I must also point out that for a developed country which boasts of giving its people a first-world standard of living, we are quite behind in making this amendment. Britain changed its relevant laws in 1981 so that since 1st January 1983, women have been able to pass on their British citizenship to their children who were born outside the UK in the same way as men. So we are about 20 years behind. The US amended its laws in 1934 to provide the children of US female citizens born abroad before 24th May 1934 and their descendants with the same rights to citizenship at birth as children born of male citizens abroad. That makes us 70 years behind. But then again, if we take the historical perspective, the concept of citizenship for Singapore is a relatively new one as we are a young independent country. But that is all the more reason, as a young nation, that we should always look for ways to strengthen the core of what it means to be a Singaporean in this globalised world.

This amendment also raises the question of the rights and responsibilities of being a Singapore citizen abroad compared to a citizen at home. The most fundamental rights of this external citizenship are those of diplomatic protection and of return to one's country of citizenship. Many states have added social welfare rights and political rights to this list. I believe that it is important for our citizens abroad to retain strong social ties with Singapore, especially since they will be able to vote from overseas. We should do more to engage overseas Singaporeans so that wherever they are, they share our national aspirations and can tune in to our national dialogue and make a positive contribution to our progress. Hence, I support fully the residency criterion for the Singapore parent by descent before the citizenship can be transferred by descent to another generation.

Column: 2805

In conclusion, Singapore citizenship comes with a bundle of rights and obligations. It also comes with a set of principles and ideals that defines what it means to be Singaporeans. By passing this amendment, the Constitution takes an important step towards enshrining one of our most precious ideals - equality - as one of our basic rights as a citizen. Today is indeed a very good day for all of us who believe in the Singapore Dream.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Sir, I join my parliamentary colleagues in support of this Bill and applaud the Government for the long-waited but certainly positive response. As the Government has put it, never mind the waiting, so long as there are results.

Many have asked what triggers this change of mind with regard to the amendment. Is it a number game with respect to increasing a declining population? Or it is to grant and restore equality to women, the same right and privilege granted to the men under the Constitution? Never mind that it could be for both reasons. However, some Singaporean women have commented that the changes must be for the right reasons, and not for some purposes.

Sir, in particular, the amendment to item 5 has been long debated and awaited. Singaporean women have given their thumbs up for what they call history in Singapore. Going forward, there are issues to tackle especially such as how to facilitate an effective understanding and implementation of the changes to a fundamental constitutional right.

Sir, I would like to raise several points for clarification. One of the issues is Government's stand on dual citizenship or foreign nationalities. Another issue has to do with the Government's stand with

Column: 2806

respect to fulfilment or performance of National Service by these children born of foreign fathers.

I understand that these issues can be difficult, complex and even emotional. So, it is paramount that our Government introduces consequential amendments quickly to the respective laws so that Singaporeans can be clear about their obligations and decide appropriately and quickly on the citizenship issue for their children in such predicament.

One other issue that we need to be concerned about is when the Singaporean mother, who after acquiring the Singapore citizenship for her children from overseas, may choose to continue staying overseas with their families. Given this scenario, does the proposed amendment provide for conditions that stipulate the requirement to return and reside in Singapore for the citizenship granted?

Sir, would the current condition that a Singaporean citizen may be deprived of his/her citizenship if he/she has been ordinarily resident outside Singapore for a continuous period of 10 years, and during the period has not returned to Singapore, also apply to this group of foreign children?

Also, for these overseas children, who have stayed for a long time overseas, are there plans to require them to demonstrate awareness of the Singapore culture, the way of life and in certain cases, linguistic proficiency in any of the four official languages? This is necessary to ensure that we can re-integrate active returnees into our Singapore society.

Sir, just as many Singaporeans have welcomed the proposed amendments with respect to citizenship conferment, many would like to better understand the rules and conditions. What steps would Government take after the Bill has been passed to facilitate public awareness?

Column: 2807

Would the Government mount an educational programme in its outreach to Singaporeans, both local and overseas?

Sir, the Government has taken big steps in the last few years to accord to women more privileges on their rights upon their persistent calls. This can be seen in the redress on the quota for female medical graduates and today, the amendment in this Bill. There is one more item that should be addressed and, that is, accord similar medical benefits to women civil servants.

Sir, beyond this, I urge the Government to recognise and support our womenfolk as they make more incisive and deeper inroads in their decision-making process so that the right things get done as in item 5 of this Bill.

On this note, I support the Bill.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the speakers who have spoken on this Bill. I note that the men have been outnumbered but, all the more, I thank the ladies. May I now address some of the points which they have raised.

Mr Low Thia Khiang and also Mdm Ho asked about Article 135 which has to do with deprivation of citizenship for somebody who has been away for 10 years and has not come back, and whether that still applies and contradicts our amendments on according citizenships.

I do not think they contradict. These are two separate problems which very likely are two different groups of people. Most Singaporeans who are overseas and have acquired citizenship by descent, have lived in Singapore for some time, but happened to be overseas when they have their children, still maintain their links with Singapore. I would say that is true for the vast majority and their children too, provided their parents have maintained their links with Singapore, should be entitled to citizenship by descent.

Column: 2808

A small number of citizens who have lost their links with Singapore, at some point, we will have to make up our minds on whether they are still Singaporeans or not and, if it is necessary, we have to decide whether to deprive them of citizenship. Article 135 does not mean they are automatically deprived of citizenship. It gives the Government the right to move if it needs to do so and it has been exercised very rarely. So I see this as two complementary provisions of our citizenship rules. I do not see a contradiction.

Ms Irene Ng asked whether this is a pragmatic change or fundamental one and would like to be reassured that we are doing it for the right reason and not for some purpose. I assure her that we are doing it for the right reason, but there is a purpose. And the purpose is that we have to bring our rules up to date and in keeping with the times and the tenor of the society we live in. The tenor of the society has changed. Ten or 20 years ago, it was the custom - she does not like it, not all of us like it - that the woman would follow the husband. And if the husband lived overseas, the woman would go and live overseas, and the husband would look after her and bring up their children, sometimes overseas. And we have to ask, in this circumstance, do we want to give their child a free option to be a Singapore citizen? Because, actually, once a woman has gone overseas, she is committed - she has cast the die. So, we said, no.

But nothing is cast in stone and we have reviewed our position. Today, it is a different situation. Many of the women who go overseas are professionals. They marry foreigners. They keep their links with Singapore. They have not just opted out from Singapore society. They have families and friends on both sides, but they come back to Singapore from time to time. Sometimes, when something goes wrong - husband meets with an acci

Column: 2809

dent, passes away or something happens - they have to come back to Singapore for good. They are our people and we have to look after them. As I have suggested from the numbers that I produced just now, more and more Singaporean women are doing this. A lot of our daughters who travel overseas and study overseas marry and live overseas. But they have parents here and they keep their links back here.

So, it is necessary for us to amend our Constitution to reflect this situation. Is it still a patrilinear society? I would say, yes. It is as a statement of fact. You are MPs. You know, you have seen the cases. There are many women who come and say that their husbands have deserted them and are not supporting them. There are very few men who come and say that their wives have deserted them and are not supporting them, and have left them carrying the children. That is still the reality. But it is shifting gradually, as Mdm Ho says, and so we are also shifting slightly less gradually.

Actually, it is not so gradual because, as Ms Irene Ng says, the UK moved 20 years ago. But the UK has had a Parliament for a thousand years. Even America has been around a few hundred years. So, we are only 20 years behind them. I think we are quite all right. Because if you are absolutely up at the leading edge in matters of social change, you are never quite sure whether the leading edge has taken a wrong turn, needs to back track and make a U-turn. We need to keep a certain stability and ballast so that when we move, we have the advantage of the experience of people who have moved ahead of us. And when they have gone a strange way, we will wait and see and if after one or two generations, it still makes sense, and if yes, then we follow them.

Column: 2810

If you look at the 1960s, the way the western society went with hippies and free love, it looked like a new spring time, but the hippies are now all balding and grey. It was not such a happy environment. And I think it is good that we did not go that direction. So, similarly, with other issues, we will make haste, but we will also watch and keep some ballast.

Mdm Ho asked about dual citizenship. I think children born abroad do effectively have the privilege of two choices. Because if we grant them citizenship by descent, the country where they are born often also grant them citizenship by descent or maybe by geography.

An hon. Member: By birth.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: By birth. In which case, they have a choice. But our laws are that by the time you reach 21, you have to choose. And that is something which we have looked at from time to time, and we have decided that we are not ready to change that. We will continue to look at it, but it will be a very big decision for us to decide to change that.

As regards National Service by children of foreign fathers, if they are citizens and are boys, they have to do NS, just like any other citizens. Of course, they can renounce their citizenships - some may. And there are some parents who may say, "Daughters, I will register for Singapore citizenship. Sons, I may not." We all know of such cases. But I hope that when you make that argument in principle and say that we should all be a family, whether you are born overseas or in Singapore, you are still part of the family that applies to boys as well as girls. I hope that Singaporeans who are overseas and want to keep this option and keep the Singapore citizenship will also remember that it comes with a responsibility, ie, when your son reaches 18, have him do national service.

Column: 2811

I have known of people who have children - diplomats, businessmen who have been overseas - who have spent most of their childhood overseas. But when they reach the age of 18, they come back and they do National Service, and some of them have won Swords of Honour. So being born overseas, if brought up in a Singaporean household, does not prevent them from acquiring the values, the attitudes, the loyalties which will make them willing to come back and to serve and be a good citizen.

On raising awareness of the new rules and so on, we will do. I think people know that we have changed the legislation. Among those women who are marrying overseas and to whom this will apply, I am sure the word will spread. Anyway, Contact Singapore will be available to spread the word.

As for medical benefits which Mdm Ho asked about, this is a subject for another speech on another day.

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament, which is 56 Members. Ring the Division Bells.

After two minutes -

Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, Members are reminded that they are to press 'Present' on their electronic voting unit located at their left armrest, before indicating their vote. Those who fail to press 'Present' will not have their votes recorded. Voting will be open for 45 seconds from the time 'Voting in Progress' is flashed on the display board.

Members are reminded to check their names and vote indications posted on the display

Column: 2812

board after the close of voting. If a Member is of the opinion that his vote has been taken in error or has been recorded wrongly, he may rise and request the Chair to have his vote taken correctly, provided that such request is made before the Chair declares the result of the division.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Division taken: Ayes, 64; No, Nil; Abstention, Nil.

Ayes

|

Ayes (cont.)

---|---

Abdullah Tarmugi

Ahmad Khalis Abdul Ghani

Ang Mong Seng

Chan Soo Sen

Chay Wai Chuen

Chen Seow Phun, John

Chew Heng Ching

Chin Tet Yung

Chong, Charles

Chong Weng Chiew

Fong, Arthur

Foo Chee Keng, Cedric

Gan Kim Yong

Gan Lai Chiang. Andy

Goh Chok Tong

Halimah Yacob

Hawazi Daipi

Heng Chee How

Ho Geok Choo

Ho Peng Kee

Inderjit Singh

Iswaran, S.

Column: 2813

Khaw Boon Wan

Khor Lean Suan, Amy

Koo Tsai Kee

Lee Hsien Loong

Lee, Warren

Lee Yock Suan

Leong Horn Kee

Lim Boon Heng

Lim Hng Kiang

Lim Siang Keat, Raymond

Lim Swee Say

Lim T. E., David

Loh Meng See

Low Seow Chay

Low Thia Khiang

|

Mah Bow Tan

Mohd Maliki Bin Osman

Neo, Lily

Ng Eng Hen

Ng Phek Hoong, Irene

Ong Chit Chung

Ong Kian Min

Othman Haron Eusofe

Phua, Cynthia

Ravindran, R.

Seng Han Thong

Sin Boon Ann

Tan Boon Wan

Tan Cheng Bock

Teo Chee Hean

Teo Ho Pin

Vivian Balakrishnan

Wee Siew Kim

Wong Kan Seng

Yaacob Ibrahim

Yao Chih, Matthias

Yatiman Yusof

Yeo Cheow Tong

Yeo Guat Kwang

Yu-Foo Yee Shoon

Zainudin Nordin

Zainul Abidin Rasheed

No

Nil

Abstention

Nil

Mr Speaker: The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lee Hsien Loong].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment.

Third Reading Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament, which is 56 Members, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. Ring the Division Bells.

After two minutes -

We will now take a Division. May I remind hon. Members to press the button marked 'Present' on the electronic voting unit before indicating their vote. You may now proceed to vote.

Column: 2814

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Division taken: Ayes, 64; No, Nil; Abstention, Nil.

Ayes

|

Ayes (cont.)

---|---

Abdullah Tarmugi

Ahmad Khalis Abdul Ghani

Ang Mong Seng

Chan Soo Sen

Chay Wai Chuen

Chen Seow Phun, John

Chew Heng Ching

Chin Tet Yung

Chong, Charles

Chong Weng Chiew

Fong, Arthur

Foo Chee Keng, Cedric

Gan Kim Yong

Gan Lai Chiang. Andy

Goh Chok Tong

Halimah Yacob

Hawazi Daipi

Heng Chee How

Ho Geok Choo

Ho Peng Kee

Inderjit Singh

Iswaran, S.

Khaw Boon Wan

Khor Lean Suan, Amy

Koo Tsai Kee

Lee Hsien Loong

Lee, Warren

Lee Yock Suan

Leong Horn Kee

Lim Boon Heng

Lim Hng Kiang

Lim Siang Keat, Raymond

Lim Swee Say

Lim T. E., David

Loh Meng See

Low Seow Chay

Low Thia Khiang

|

Mah Bow Tan

Mohd Maliki Bin Osman

Neo, Lily

Ng Eng Hen

Ng Phek Hoong, Irene

Ong Chit Chung

Ong Kian Min

Othman Haron Eusofe

Phua, Cynthia

Ravindran, R.

Seng Han Thong

Sin Boon Ann

Tan Boon Wan

Tan Cheng Bock

Teo Chee Hean

Teo Ho Pin

Vivian Balakrishnan

Wee Siew Kim

Wong Kan Seng

Yaacob Ibrahim

Yao Chih, Matthias

Yatiman Yusof

Yeo Cheow Tong

Yeo Guat Kwang

Yu-Foo Yee Shoon

Zainudin Nordin

Zainul Abidin Rasheed

No

Nil

Abstention

Nil

Mr Speaker: The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not

Column: 2815

less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

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

6.04 pm