Chandra Mohan K Nair
Singapore
“Therefore, in the case, for example, which he mentioned, if a person lends a vehicle to another person and there is no reason for him, having known that person and having carried out sufficient checks as to why he wants the vehicle, and he tells him a very plausible story to suspect that he would use it for some crime which makes the car…”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst all these avenues are very commendable, I would still like to ask whether we could formalise by having a student form of Parliament. The perception in Singapore is that the youngsters may not be that actively involved in politics.”
“Sir, may I declare my interest in the matter. I am a Council Member of the National University of Singapore. I am also the Honorary Secretary of the National University of Singapore Society, the Guild House. I am also an old graduate from the Bukit Timah campus. With that, could I ask this question, Sir?”
“Therefore, in passing this Bill, I hope that the enforcement agencies will take note of the points that have been raised here. I would also like to add that I am involved in this Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act.”
“I believe that some of these countries do allow but there may be stumbling blocks by way of immigration and work permit or employment pass restrictions.”
“Lastly, Sir, are there facilities within the prison for work-related activities and facilities for studies for prisoners? We must do our level best to give these prisoners a second chance in life. Perhaps the Minister could give us an update of the new Changi Prison Complex.”
The complete record
Every one of 244 lines we hold for Chandra Mohan K Nair, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“Therefore, in the case, for example, which he mentioned, if a person lends a vehicle to another person and there is no reason for him, having known that person and having carried out sufficient checks as to why he wants the vehicle, and he tells him a very plausible story to suspect that he would use it for some crime which makes the car liable to forfeiture, the public prosecutor will consider all these facts in deciding whether or not to forfeit. As to the Schedule, just a short point. I am sure Mr Mohan will realise that we do need flexibility in the Schedule because it is a moving game, and technology changes all the time. So we add biometric identifiers as and when necessary. We leave it fluid because the Minister may have to make his amendments quickly to meet any security exigencies. So, currently, we will take the fingerprints and photographs and, in the future, maybe iris and other technology. These are the points that Members have made.”
“There will be annual classification shoots for him to make sure he still has the skills and there will be protocols on how to use it right. I think we should not limit the rank. Mr Mohan asked, why only the rank of Serjeant and above? I think it depends on the role and function, his task and, most importantly, that he is trained, and therefore is accountable. On the seizure of monies provision, actually this is not a very critical situation on the ground because basically we have taken this amendment from the Limitation Act which also allows within six years for a person to make a claim. In reality, the monies in the possession of these immigration offenders, many of whom are, for example, vice workers, whom we repatriate, and we do it quite quickly. Therefore, we find that, in fact, most of them are very happy to go home. So, whatever monies that are in their possession will be handed over and used to help pay for the cheapest airfare. So, really, the need to invoke this provision is very minimal. It is also quite unlikely that anybody will turn up later and say, "I have an association with this immigration offender who has my money." But we should provide for it because it is in the Limitation Act. Therefore, we put it in. On the forfeiture of vehicles, a point that Mr Mohan made, let me assure him that every case will be considered on its own facts. In fact, the guidelines were tightened in 1996 so that the departments, when making a recommendation to the public prosecutor to forfeit the vehicle, must justify it, and the public prosecutor must be convinced. So AGC will act as a common point to determine that on the facts, it is reasonable and fair to forfeit the vehicle.”
“But for these people who go to ICA to surrender their Singapore citizenship, what this amendment will entail is that they will be told: "Please go and apply for the appropriate pass or permit." So, 24 hours is good enough for that. Because he would have come in on a Singapore passport but, once he surrenders his citizenship, he cannot use the Singapore passport which he had already surrendered. So, basically, he goes to another floor in the ICA building to submit an application for a pass to remain in Singapore. So it is not a problem. On requiring vehicles to stop at immigration clearance, first of all, I am very grateful for Mr Khalis account. It shows that our security agencies are alert. I hope his relative did not receive too much of a shock, but it is a good sharing. Of course, I must apologise if there had been any confusion or a gap in terms of the signages at the Causeway. I am told that, in fact, many of us who use the Causeway will probably testify that our checkpoints, in fact, are already well organised, and people basically do know where to go. But no one is perfect. So we can see what more can be done in terms of signages or other signs. On officers being armed, I must thank Mr Arthur Fong for his strong support for ICA officers to be armed. Indeed, he has hit the nail on the head, which is that ICA officers do an important job, but sometimes they are not fully appreciated. And, sometimes, their job can be risky, whether it is enforcement or whether it is at the border checkpoint, for example, or the sea-lanes and our coastal areas, keeping out illegal offenders. But my assurance is that no officer who need not be armed will be armed. Every situation of an officer being armed will be carefully considered. He will be fully trained.”
“Actually there is no substantive amendment to the policy. For example, for ex-citizens, they can continue to come to Singapore on social visit passes or continue to work here, if they qualify, on work passes. Like I said in my main speech, these are really administrative amendments to fill up a lacuna in the law which is this. Under the Immigration Act currently, a person who enters Singapore will need to have a pass, but a child who is born in Singapore and an ex-Singaporean who becomes a foreigner, because he has surrendered his Singapore citizenship, technically are in Singapore but do not enter Singapore. Because there is no physical entry, the Act currently does not apply to them. So, basically, what we are doing is we are plugging this loophole and putting it into a law this requirement for the parents to submit an application for a pass, and 42 days really is enough. Because, on the ground, what happens is that in a hospital when a child is born, the parents will know that there is a need for them to regularise the child's stay. So, after this Bill is passed, this will be made known to them. Basically, it will entail going to the foreign embassy to get the child's papers done and then going to ICA to regularise the stay. So, 42 days is a sufficient period; the same thing with 24 hours. Because, on the ground, what happens is that most ex-Singaporeans actually surrender their Singapore citizenship when they are overseas. Some come to Singapore to do it. But many who come in already have foreign passports. So when they come in, a "social visit pass" is already stamped on their passports. Sir, the numbers who retain their Singapore passports and come in with Singapore passports are actually very small.”
“As a lawyer, he knows that the courts have a tariff for a particular offence and then, depending on the facts of a particular case, the sentence will be meted out according to this tariff. I think, in Singapore, neither Parliament nor the Executive will interfere with how the judges run the courts. But what we are doing today, I am sure, will send a signal to all Singaporeans and also to the courts as to the approach that we are now taking with regard to this offence. Will these amendments impact housing brokers and agents? I certainly hope so, and not only them but other people who may be involved in the renting out of premises, and in this regard publicity is important. I think Mr Ravindran has asked for more of that. As I mentioned in my speech, we already had dialogue sessions with the relevant agencies, SISV, and Institute of Estate Agents who, in fact, have said that they will help us publicise the checks to their members. I am sure that other professional groups can also do a part. And, really, I think the message that I want to make today is, we all do our part and not just leave it to the landlords. Everybody has a part to play in curbing illegal immigrants, some of whom are very safely ensconced in premises. If we all do a part henceforth, I think the numbers will further be reduced. Let me now just touch on one or two other points which Members have raised. Mr Chandra Mohan made this point about children born to foreign parents in Singapore and also the point about former citizens who surrendered their Singapore citizenship, which I think Mr Ahmad Khalis made, and asked whether now it is in one case overly strict, 42 days, and then in another case, 24 hours for them to submit papers for their passes. Let me put this in perspective.”
“That is a consideration we will have to make. Mr Ravindran asked whether when we have this new approach, public prosecutors will therefore charge more rather than warn. He mentioned other cases when maybe, in the past, somebody had been warned, but now with this nuanced approach, more may be charged. Let me, first of all, say that the public prosecutor examines every case on its own facts. Every case is very carefully reviewed against the guidelines and, I think, Members will appreciate that because we have finetuned the guidelines over the years, currently only about 50% are charged. Therefore, there is some flexibility there, but not enough flexibility, because the current divide is really not satisfactory where, on the one hand, either you charge, and if you charge, the person found guilty goes to jail mandatorily, or you let him off with a stern warning. Therefore, based on what we are doing, really, the ends of justice will be better served if there is a continuum where, on the one hand, you could be a recalcitrant knowing harbourer; and on the other hand, the innocent, the very careful and diligent landlord who did the three proper checks and in between, as Mr Ravindran has said, there is a matrix of facts. So we will let the AGC look at the facts which have occurred in a particular case and see how the ends of justice can be served by preferring a charge along this continuum. So, it is not for me to therefore constrain the public prosecutor's hand in deciding the case. What I can say is that now, with this framework, we will have a more flexible model to work with. It is the same thing that I would say with regard to how the courts sentence. I think Mr Ahmad Khalis urges the courts not to, I suppose, be overly strict in terms of applying the tariff.”
“But the point is that the more people who are responsible, the more people will check, then the harder it is for immigration offenders to find accommodation in Singapore. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr S Iswaran) in the Chair] 5.30 pm Back to Mr Ravindran's point about photographs. I will ask ICA and MOM to take a look at that, although, from the statistics that I have, the number of landlords who were proffered forged documents is actually very low. In fact, a lot of those landlords who fell foul of the law either did not check or just carried out partial or cursory checks, sometimes checking just photocopied documents, which is not good enough. And that is the point that Mr Arthur Fong also talked about as regards his constituent. He may have been shown forged documents, but he did not go on to do the three checks. He may have looked at it and felt that it was genuine. But the point is, regardless of what he is proffered, do the three checks. I think that will help him when he is being investigated by the Police. The other point, of course, is once you have photographs, it may also lead to some landlords feeling that they have to do more. I think that is an important point to make. We are not overloading landlords to do more. The basic checks will remain the same. But if we put up photographs and these are helpful to some landlords, that will help them ease their mind. This is something which MOM and ICA will have to study because there are cost implications. You have to convert all your photographs into hard databases or put them online. And then we have to balance it to see whether, in terms of the framework that I mentioned just now, the whole purpose of the checks, will putting photographs indeed aid this process adequately enough to offset the cost incurred.”
“Let us stick to this framework but recognising that there can be some harshness in some cases and recognising that, like Mr Ravindran has said, there is very often a matrix of facts, a one-size-fits-all approach may not be the best approach. Now, we are introducing this lower limb approach, a graduated approach, where up there is the recalcitrant landlord or one who knowingly harbours an immigration offender for which the current punishment will apply and I think rightly so, because it is a serious offence. And to respond to Mr Arthur Fong and Mr Chandra Mohan, yes, we will retain the mandatory minimum offence which we have in Singapore but for which we will only invoke and use for the very serious offence. And I will say that if you harbour an immigration offender knowingly or you are recalcitrant, that is a serious offence. But below that, we will have two other categories of reckless harbouring and negligent harbouring. On Mr Ravindran's point whether we should do more to help landlords discover the status of a tenant who submits forged documents, first, let me say that, really, the task of landlords is not to discover the real status of the tenant. In the context of these checks, it is to ensure that they do not fall foul of the law and, at the same time, help Singapore keep the immigration offender problem at bay. Because, if all landlords do the checks properly, then illegal immigrants and immigration offenders will find it very difficult to find a shelter over their heads. So, that is the first point. And, in fact, this point is also related to the point on housing agents where we have now extended it to not just housing agents but all middlemen. Mr Ravindran is right that all middlemen who are involved in the letting out of the premises can be liable.”
“Because if you are a landlord who is going to let out your premises to a foreigner, the first thing you would want to do is to check his status. You would check his papers. In fact, we are helping these landlords to do this by stating very clearly in the Act what he should do - check his visit pass or work permit, check the particulars against the particulars in his passport and, for good measure, check with either the employer or since the year 2000, we have offered an alternative check of checking either with ICA or MOM. Therefore, this is the context in which the framework works - the presumption that we introduced in 1984 and due diligence requirements, first, in 1993 requiring the landlord just to check the travel documents and then in 1998, we amended that and made it watertight; we made it clearer; we spelt out the three checks very clearly. So there is no doubt as to what a landlord needs to do. I am sure Members will realise that over the past 5-7 years, there has been wide publicity on these due diligence checks. In fact, house-owners would have received booklets from the ICA. Originally, it was done in conjunction with IRAS. Now, separately, ICA will send them. And there are also pamphlets which are sent to house-owners. Posters are also put up in various places including Town Councils' notice boards and HDB's notice boards and, of course, through the public media, through Crime Watch, on the radio and indeed in the press reports that some of the Members have mentioned. In response to any call to change the basic framework, I will say no.”
“The numbers have come down. Indeed we are heartened by that, but that is because everybody has chipped in. We have sent out a very clear message through legislation and publicity, and that the fact is everyone can do a part. As I have said in my main speech, the numbers have dropped. In the year 2000, we had 16,500. Last year, we had 11,800. But for the first six months of this year, the number crept up slightly to 6,300. Therefore, this is the context in which we move these amendments - that we must still remain resolute in our fight against the immigration offender problem in Singapore. Sir, some Members have spoken as to why we do not want to moderate our approach that we have taken where there is a presumption that operates against the landlord and then it is up to him to rebut the presumption. I think it makes a lot of sense to retain this framework. Firstly, because, as I have said, the problem is a serious one; therefore, we do not want to throw away the framework that has worked well for so long. Also because Singaporeans are familiar with this framework. I am sure Members will be mindful that what we have done is to have moderated this framework. Hence, whilst currently there is a presumption of knowledge, it is up to the landlord to rebut the presumption fully by doing all three checks. Under the amendments, we have nuanced the approach. And now there is no presumption of knowledge but there is a presumption of reckless harbouring and negligent harbouring. And when the foreign tenant who is an immigration offender is shown to be on the premises, it is up to the landlord to rebut the presumption in a way which makes a lot of sense.”
“The amended section 49 empowers the court to order a forfeiture of the vehicle where an offence under the Immigration Act is proven. There may be innocent owners who might have given their consent to drivers who might commit offences without the owner's knowledge. It is hoped that in such cases the innocent owners' vehicles would not be forfeited. The power to order a forfeiture by the court should be exercised very cautiously and sparingly, lest it offends against the right of ownership of an innocent vehicle owner. Sir, the new section 55(1)(ga) provides for the taking or recording of any personal identifier which is currently defined in section 2 as amended. However, the new section 61A states that the Schedule may be amended, added to or varied by the Minister. This means that, besides any finger, thumb or palmar impressions, any photograph or other image of a person's face and shoulders, the Minister may go beyond, eg, taking of blood samples, DNA testing, etc. I hope there will be respect of one's privacy. The amended section 57 is to be welcomed, as it now reduces the harshness of the previous law. The amendments give the prosecution and the court more discretion and flexibility. And this intention of Parliament must be exercised generously by the prosecution and the court, having regard to some unfortunate cases which were heard earlier in our courts where the courts had little discretion in the sentencing of convicted persons under the Immigration Act. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, first, I thank all Members who have spoken, all of whom have supported the Bill. Let me first address the key points with respect to the amended section 57 on harbouring. First, let me reiterate the point that the immigration offender situation in Singapore remains serious.”
“The Controller of Immigration should allow at least 14 days for the non-citizen to organise his life and make necessary arrangements for him to leave Singapore. These are the people who are going to migrate and it is important that they leave Singapore with fond memories or at least very little negative thoughts about our nation. Any harsh treatment of these people would not assist in them being good ambassadors of Singapore when they are abroad. The punishment seems to be very harsh. Why should we want to send him to prison and, worse still, cane him for such an offence? The modern trend in punishment is to try and avoid any form of caning to be imposed by a court of law. Caning may be contrary to the modern trend in human rights. Caning should not be a form of punishment in our modern world. The sentencing system should be less harsh and I submit that imprisonment as a form of punishment should suffice. Next, new section 38A. Sir, would it be prudent to have only certain officers, say, above the rank of Sergeant to be provided with arms and ammunition? Alternatively, the Ministry must ensure that they are properly trained and disciplined in their use of arms and ammunition so that there is no scope for abuse. On new section 47A, the creditors of the prohibited immigrant is now left with having to queue up and having a claim inferior to that of the Immigration Department. The creditor may make his claim within six years from the date of the seizure. He has no right to garnish, attach, sequestrate or levy against the prohibited immigrant's monies which are seized by the Immigration Department. It could be argued that this is unfair to a creditor whose rights are being overridden by the claims of the Immigration Department.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I wish to declare my interest on this Bill as a practising lawyer in criminal law. Sir, I would like to comment on the following proposed amendments to the Immigration Act. Section 6(2) requires completion of embarkation forms except for Singaporeans. I suggest that it should include, besides a citizen of Singapore, a permanent resident of Singapore also unless he is already exempted by the Minister for Home Affairs under section 56 of the said Act. It is noted that section 6(3)(e) is being amended to reduce the severity of punishment from a fine of $4,000 to $2,000 and imprisonment of 12 months to 6 months. This is one occasion when Parliament is being more considerate in its punishment by reducing the same. The new section 6A imposes on the non-citizen parents of a child born in Singapore to renew after 42 days of the birth of the child the special pass for the child to remain in Singapore. This appears to be harsh for parents or one of the parents who is working in Singapore, say, on an employment pass or a work permit. Sub-section (5) imposes on the parents the burden of ensuring the child does not remain in Singapore. This, in reality, would result in the separation of the child from his or her parents. The strong arm of the law needs to temper this harsh imposition with compassion and humanity. It is therefore hoped that the Controller of Immigration would not be draconian or too strict in his approach to granting extension of time of the special pass. Sir, the new section 11A imposes on persons who have ceased to be a citizen of Singapore to leave Singapore within 24 hours after he ceases to be a citizen of Singapore. Why such a harsh timeline?”
“If the decision, Sir, is to be made by the end of this year, is there a closing date for any kind of applicants, besides the two that had come in?”
“Can I take it, Sir, that it could be allocated to either the NUS or NTU and no other entity?”
“Sir, may I declare my interest in the matter. I am a Council Member of the National University of Singapore. I am also the Honorary Secretary of the National University of Singapore Society, the Guild House. I am also an old graduate from the Bukit Timah campus. With that, could I ask this question, Sir?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst all these avenues are very commendable, I would still like to ask whether we could formalise by having a student form of Parliament. The perception in Singapore is that the youngsters may not be that actively involved in politics. So by creating a democratic institution like this, would it not encourage our youngsters to get into politics so that they can serve the nation better? With that, may I urge the Ministry to seriously consider the initiation of a student parliament in Singapore?”
“On the other hand, a young scientist today who is eager to do all the cloning of human embryo research and might well feel he could solve a great deal of medical diseases might be disappointed with the passing of this Bill.”
“But many scientists, patient groups and the biotech industry opposed the ban because it would outlaw cloning for reproduction as well as therapeutic cloning in which scientists make embryonic clones to get stem cells for potential disease treatments. Thus, our piece of legislation is modified in a way that itmay not cover all of these. Meanwhile, the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine has introduced what it is believed to be the first international agreement banning human cloning. The measure called the Protocol on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings was drafted in the 1990s following successful attempts to clone mammals, particularly by embryo splitting and nuclear transfer. Twenty fourof the 43 Council of Europe States have signed the protocol. Elsewhere in Europe, a German Health Minister said a few years ago that she was opposed to human embryo cloning, while France adopted a draft law to ban human cloning in medical researchthat year. The French law will place severe restrictions on the use of frozen embryos created as part of a fertility programme but no longer needed or claimed by the parents for the purposes of medical research. Russia approved a five-year moratorium on human cloning, and these are some of the quotes I got from the Internet. Sir, at the end of the day, this House, including myself, may well support this Bill, based on our gut feel. I really am not sure. Ten years down the road I may well feel happy that I have made this decision if we hear that in other countries there are problems related to human embryo cloning.”
“"When you get to the point where you have made a human embryo even for research purposes, it is a line that is crossed." That is another quotation. The Medical Ethicist said an argument could be made for using the technology to create cells that could be used to treat diseases. If you could makecell lines from these creations and turn them into something that the body would not reject, that would be a wonderful breakthrough, in terms of being able to offer cures to people. Just a few years ago, an Italian fertility doctor and a US researcher announced plans to clone humans. They said hundreds of couples had volunteered for controversial procedure. The announcement was criticised by officials inseveral countries, and the Italian authorities threatened to ban that doctor from practising medicine if he goes ahead with the experiment. Another organisation in USA moved his research into human cloning outside of the United States after being investigated by the Federal government. That organisation was founded by a member of a religious movement which believes extraterrestrial scientist created life on earth and that cloning is a way of achieving eternal life. Many nations have either announced bans on cloning research or have legislation pending. I guess Singapore is one of them. The United States of House of Representatives voted to ban all human cloning. The legislation, supported by President George Bush, was passed by265 to 162 votes. In other words, it was not unanimous,60%-odd voted in favour, and whether that could go on to other kinds of cloning research.”
“The Internetwebsites have a great deal of materials on human cloning, and I would like to quote some to give a flavour of the international debate that is going on, and I quote: "A White House spokeswoman reaffirmed President Bush's opposition to human cloning. The President has made it clear that he is 100% opposed to any type of cloning of human embryos." said the spokeswoman for the President. The President supported the House legislation to ban human cloning which was passed overwhelmingly. The House of Representatives in USA voted to ban human cloning and set penalties of up to 10 years in prison and $1 million fine for those convicted of attempting to clone humans. The measure was never taken up by the Senate. So it never became law. I believe that is still the position,and I stand to be corrected. One Senator hoped that the Senate could find a compromise that will allow some cloning research to continue without opening the door to the creation of human beings through clones. The Senate had to draw a line. So it is a resonable line.We can continue medical science and breakthroughs, without crossing the line into something none of us wants to see. These worksset the stage for human therapeutic cloning as a potentially limitless source of immune compatible cells for tissue engineering and transplantation medicine. Anotherquote,"Our intention is not to create cloned human beings but rather to make lifesaving therapies for a wide range of human disease conditions, including diabetes, strokes, cancer, AIDS, and neurodegenerative disorders, such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer'sdiseases." To describe the advances as a very primitive development, the Director of the Centre for Bioethics at the University of Pennyslvannia deemed it a significant one.”
“Has there been an exhaustive and critical feedback process put in place to get varied views from Singaporeans, for example, from religious groups, racial groups and the research and scientific community in Singapore and even abroad? In exploring the frontiers of scientific research and advancement, it is most crucial to have an open mind and to critically analyse scientific advances and experimentation, as long as the primary goal is to advance the cause of doing good and advancement of the human race. May I propose that this Bill, being innovative and far-reaching, be made available to the public for a thorough discussion by way of a parliamentary Select Committee? Through the Select Committee, varied views can be aired by our citizens and experts in this field. And Parliament and the Government would be that much richer and wiser. We can then have an improved, well-informed and well-researched piece of legislation. Stem cells are a kind of master cells that can grow into any kind of cell in the body. Research in this area is revolutionary in today's age. It may not be revolutionary in 10-30 years' time. We must explore the possibility of us being criticised in future that we were rather narrow-minded in legislating hurriedly on something that we are not that quite sure of. Those who favour such research would say that they are just trying to help people who are sick and really, that is an important focus for the advancement of the human race. People are concerned about the ethical, moral and religious problems when it comes to cloning of human embryos. I believe this matter can be a big debate. But at the end of the day, I do not believemost people will favour cloning of human embryos.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill seems to be necessary in order to prevent experimentation with human embryo cloning and to allow only the natural way of creating human beings. It could be argued whether this Bill is really necessary in Singapore today. Do we have a single case of abuse at all to warrant legislating on this controversial matter? Presumably, the introduction of this piece of legislation is for future deterrence. Generally, the more popular view with normal human beings, including most scientists specialising in the field of stem cell research, seems to be that prohibition of human embryo cloning, based on scientific information available currently, seems necessary. However, my concern is whether the politicians in Singapore and of the world, and the scientific community in particular, are mixing morality ethics, religious leanings and scientific research and taking the safe way out by banning something we are not that familiar with. Have there been sufficient informed and independent enough discussion and debate with an open mind? I am not sure. Have there been opportunities given to the scientists to argue, without fear, in favour of research and experimentation with the cloning of the human embryo in the interest of scientific research and advancement? The Government may well have studied papers, consulted experts and obtained scientific feedback from various advanced countries. Which countries did Singapore consult? Which scientific organisations, both local and/or foreign, have advised our Government for Singapore to come to the conclusion that human embryo cloning is to be outlawed? What are the views of different sectors of society on this sensitive matter?”
“Therefore, in passing this Bill, I hope that the enforcement agencies will take note of the points that have been raised here. I would also like to add that I am involved in this Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. I have served in the Committee for more than 15 years and on that, I can safely say that there are good and very effective safeguards. But having said that, I think it is also important to review this particular statute to see if a better form could be made out.”
“It is important therefore that proper training is conducted by competent persons and experts in this field as all these affect the liberty and privacy of our citizens. There must be a fair balance of individual rights as compared to public interest and to comply with the fundamental liberties provided for under the Constitution of Singapore. Section 27C(3), Sir, is fair and balanced and is most welcome. It deals with any photograph, finger impression, record of particulars or body sample that has been taken under section 27A from an arrested person and that person is subsequently released, without being convicted of any offence under this Act, or placed on detention or supervision under this Act. Then the Commissioner of Police shall remove these items from the register and DNA database maintained under this section. As my colleague, Mr Ravindran has mentioned, the public must be confident thatthese records are removed and there are no traces left with the authorities. Section 27C(4) creates a greater burden on accused persons. Information in the register and DNA database and any certificate or report made from that informationare admissible in evidence in court if produced from proper custody and authenticated by the signature of the Commissioner and is prima facie proof of the matters contained therein or appearing thereof. This is a liberal approach, Sir, in favour of the prosecution, as compared to the normal burden and standard approved required under our Evidence Act. So this is something to be looked into too. Sir, there must be transparency, checks and balances and also proper supervision and control. It is important to have prevention of misuse by persons in authority and respect for confidentiality and secrecy.”
“Section 27A gives police officers or officers of the Central Narcotics Bureau much wider powers against arrested person, including the power to take or cause to be takenphotographs and finger impressions, make records of the registrable particulars and any other particulars of such person and cause body samples of such person to be taken, send any photograph,finger impression, record of particulars or body sample so taken or madeto the Commissioner of Police for identification and report. Section 27A also gives these officers powers to do the above, even though the person has not really been convicted but only arrested or detained. There may not be a trial in the court of law under this Act. I would therefore caution that stringent measures be taken and that checks and balances be put in place so that there is no injustice done to arrest the person. A person arrested or detained has little choice because, under section 27A(3), if he fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the submission to the taking of his photographs and finger impressions or provide such registrable particulars or submit to the taking of his body samples by an authorised person, then that person shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to both. So, he has got no choice. And a police officer or an officer of the CNB may use such force as is reasonably necessary to take or cause to be taken the photographs,finger impressions and body samples of that person. Section 27B talks abouta police officer who hasreceived training for the above purpose.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act was passed in October 1955. It is an Act to make temporary provisions for the maintenance of public order, the control of supplies by sea to Singapore and the preventionof strikes and lockouts in essential services which include banking, broadcasting, electricity, gas, immigration, newspapers, port, dockand harbour, postal and telecommunications, prison, public transport and air transport, securities and futures contracts, water, Singapore Armed Forces, Monetary Authority of Singapore and customs services -just to name afew. In fact, surprisingly, all these are found in this particular Act. This original intention has been expanded to detain subversive elements involved in criminal activities like secret society and drug trafficking activities. This Bill proposes to extend the period of validity of this Act for another five years, from 21st October 2004. Parliament has been doing this every five years as my colleagues in Parliament have stated, for some time now. It has extended this Act, like the Senior Minister of State said,10 times for 50 years. Perhaps it is time to consider whether to make it a permanent law, or to repeal it, and have this statute in a form similar to other statutes. The name "temporary provisions" is unsuitable and is a misnomer.This statute has been in existence almost permanently for the last 50 years. Why not just call it Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act or, as Prof. Chin suggested, Criminal Law (Preventive Detention) Act, without a need for extending the validity period?”
“I believe that some of these countries do allow but there may be stumbling blocks by way of immigration and work permit or employment pass restrictions. Our Government should play an active role in minimising these obstacles so that more of our younger lawyers can practise in different jurisdictions and become better and more versatile lawyers. Overall, Sir, the proposed amendments are to be welcomed and I support the same.”
“Their dignity, pride and self-esteem must have been affected adversely for having done not so well either abroad or locally in NUS. Their parents, spouses and siblings must have been saddened by this deprivation. Please re-look at these restrictions, Sir. Give these graduates a chance to practise law. After all, there are many law graduates who fall into these categories but who were older law graduates and were not caught by these rules which were introduced in the 1990s, and who are successful practitioners and had even been appointed judges. A good degree holder may not turn out to be a good legal practitioner, and a bad degree holder may turn out to be a good legal practitioner. Section 35 of the LPA is being widened to allow foreign lawyers to do any arbitration work in Singapore without doing so jointly with a Singapore advocate and solicitor. We in Singapore are opening up the legal profession to foreign lawyers to do arbitration work in Singapore, except having any right of audience in any Singapore court. This is in line with the requirement of the World Trade Organisation and the General Agreement on Trade and Services for the various professions to open their doors for non-Singaporeans to compete. In line with this, Sir, our Government should do its level best to ensure that there is a level playing field amongst other World Trade Organisation member nations. It would be encouraging if foreign countries like Malaysia and other ASEAN countries, who are WTO members, England and the United States of America, Australia and Canada could do likewise and open their doors for our Singapore lawyers to practise in their countries.”
“This presumably will be covered by the employer law firm; (b) the need for the locum solicitor to keep up with the law and keep pace with continuing legal education to give proper legal opinion and legal advice to clients; (c) prevention of conflict of interest when a locum solicitor is allowed to be engaged by more than one law firm; and (d) disciplinary matters for professional offences under the LPA and the general law. Sir, clause 4 relating to the new section 26(1A) seems rather stringent in that a person would not qualify to be a locum solicitor unless he or she is a Singapore citizen or permanent resident of Singapore and, in the period of five years immediately preceding the application, has been a solicitor in practice or a legal officer for a period of not less than three years, or has completed such training within such time as prescribed by the Council of the Law Society of Singapore. May I suggest, Sir, that it would be fairer if the period of five years is deleted or the duration be extended from five to, say, 10 years so that more lawyers can practise law on a locum or part-time basis. Whilst we are encouraging locum solicitors, may I also take this opportunity to ask that, in order to give greater opportunities and to increase the legal pool of practitioners, we consider amending the relevant sections of the Legal Profession Act and the Legal Profession (Qualified Persons) Rules. Many of our law graduates from recognised foreign universities with Second Class (Lower) and Third Class Honours, and with Third Class Honours from the Law Faculty of the National University of Singapore cannot be admitted to the bar. This has deprived these young Singapore citizens of the chance to practise law in Singapore as private practitioners.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this proposed amendment to the Legal Profession Act (LPA) is timely and is an added benefit to the Singapore legal profession and to the Singapore public seeking legal advice. The introduction of locum solicitor into the Legal Profession Act widens the pool of available legal talent in Singapore. Many of the legally trained law graduates, who have been admitted as advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore and who are not in full-time legal practice currently for various reasons, can now practise, so to speak, on a part-time or on an ad hoc basis as a locum solicitor once this Bill becomes law. This amendment would, hopefully, encourage some lawyers who have retired and do not wish to practise on a full-time basis to come back to legal practice as locum solicitors. This would minimise the waste of legal talent, especially amongst bright lady lawyers who become housewives in order to take care of their young children. A locum solicitor is an advocate and solicitor engaged in employ on a temporary or freelance basis by one or more law firms, law corporations or solicitors practising on their own account. He or she is an employee. In introducing locum solicitor, the legal profession must ensure, through the rules to be introduced under the Legal Profession Act and especially under section 25 of the LPA, (a) the protection of the public as far as clients' money is concerned and the need for insurance coverage for negligence by the locum solicitor.”
“We have even been relaxing some of our medical fitness requirements for some vocations because there is more mechanisation in some of these vocations. So that means that we can deploy more of our people in such vocations. And, indeed, in many of our vocations, what we do require are people with better education and the ability to operate more complex systems and this fits in well with the abilities of the National Servicemen who are coming into the SAF today. I believe that is also the question that Mr Iswaran asked. Mr Heng Chee How asked about whether or not the National Service (Police) and SCDF will also have the same arrangements. Yes, we have been discussing with the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Ministry of Home Affairs will be making similar transitions and arrangements for the Police as well as the SCDF. BILLS INTRODUCED INLAND REVENUE AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore Act (Chapter 138A of the 1993 Revised Edition)", presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lim Hng Kiang); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. STATUTES (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) (NO. 2) BILL "to amend certain statutes of the Republic of Singapore", presented by Mr Lim Hng Kiang; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“There should not be any cases of students who, with the new duration of National Service, will go to higher education later than they do today. As I said, we will be discussing with our own universities to see what kind of changes in the schedules would be possible. But, of course, we cannot influence the academic calendars of universities in the northern hemisphere, for example. The impact on reservist training was also a question which Mr Leong Horn Kee and Dr Warren Lee asked about. In fact, I think reservists have already seen some impact on their training. Members may not be aware, but in April last year, we did make a change to our reservist training cycle. We used to have eight high-key years and five low-key years in a 13-year cycle. In April 2003, we changed that to seven high-key years, three low-key years, and three BIT (Basic Individual Training) years where the serviceman is called up for one to two days of basic proficiency refresher. So there has been an adjustment in the requirements for training for operationally-ready National Servicemen. And, again, these adjustments were made consciously and with the defence needs in mind to ensure that this would be sufficient for our defence needs, but that we do not call upon our operationally-ready National Servicemen for more than is necessary. Dr Warren Lee asked whether we can do improved matching for our National Servicemen so that we can make better use of the resources that we have. In fact, we constantly try to do so. Medical classification is imperfect as a science. So we tend to err on the side of caution. We are not able to deploy them in all the areas that perhaps they could be deployed in. We have, for example, been relaxing our eyesight standards for various vocations.”
“I think that you only need to look at the armed forces of countries which are of about the same population size as we are to realise that it is just not possible to have an armed forces of sufficient capability for our needs, based only on a regular force. We do, however, have many committed regulars in the SAF, and they do duties which require a longer period of professional service and training. So, many of our people in the Air Force and in the Navy, for example, are regulars, and they have a much higher proportion of regulars than in the Army. In the Air Force, of course, all our fighter pilots are regulars, although we have some who, after their regular service, continue flying with the Air Force in their operationally-ready service. So we will need to continue to depend on National Service for our defence needs for a long, long time to come, unless there is a fundamental change in our strategic circumstances, which I do not see happening. I would like to thank Mr Leong Horn Kee for his dedicated service in National Service, and also his son. He asked about disruption. The basic principle which we follow today, and which we will continue to follow, is that for people who are in the same cohort, we will allow them to go to university or higher education at the same time in the same year, basically. What it does mean is that we will be less liberal with disruption, because it is a shorter period and most of the students should be able to go on to higher education within the same year. So, there will be less need for disruption. But, at the same time, we will be less able to give disruption because the period is already shorter. But I do not see any great difficulties.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to declare the fact that my son is doing National Service. He started in January this year. The introduction of National Service was in 1967. At that time, we had an armed forces of regulars. What is the percentage of regular soldiers as compared to National Servicemen today, say, in 1967? Is there a mindset change today that our parents of National Servicemen are willing to consider the possibility of having professional soldiers as full-time regulars, instead of National Servicemen? Would we want to have a regular Armed Forces not of National Servicemen but actual soldiers doing full-time service for life or until retirement age? And, if so, would MINDEF consider the possibility of having a stronger full-time regular force, instead of a full-time National Service force? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps I should take Mr Chandra Mohan's point first, because I think that is an important point. We have had National Service since 1967. At that time, we had two battalions of soldiers. In fact, not all of them were Singaporeans; many of them were not Singaporeans. We had no air force and we had, I think, one ship, the old and much beloved RSS Panglima. We would not be able to have the defence force that we have today without National Service - not just full-time National Service but also National Service for those who have finished their full-time service and gone out into the operationally-ready National Service force. With a population base of three to four million people, we will never be able to have a force which is sufficient to provide for our own security and defence in the situation that we are in.”
“They could then have some compulsory savings to bring home, upon completion of their contracts of employment. The Government should also use part of the levy to conduct courses on, say, domestic science, proper use of home appliances, health concerns, improving their language skills, like English, Malay, even Chinese and Indian languages, and upgrade their primary and secondary education during weekends. There should be legislation to allow maids to have at least 2-4 days off per month and let them improve their skills, on a voluntary basis, during their off days. Also, Sir, we should encourage employers to have some standard employment contract with minimum employment conditions like minimum wages, off days, as I said of at least 2-4 days per month, etc. And as Ms Braema has indicated, I suspect that many of the maids in Singapore lead very hectic lives, having to work long hours, some as long as 16 hours, from 6.00 am to 10.00 pm every day. We would not want our daughters or mothers to work that hard. I would, therefore, urge the Government to seriously look into this matter with compassion and serious concern to improve the lives of foreign domestic workers in Singapore. They will then go home to their respective countries with fond memories of their stints in Singapore and to have love and affection for their employers and their families.”
“Sir, a substantial number of our foreign domestic workers, numbering in total around 150,000, come from neighbouring ASEAN countries like Indonesia, the Philippines and also from the sub-continent countries like Sri Lanka and India. These workers are generally young ladies in their late teens and their 20s. They are here to work and earn some money in a very humble way. Most of them are quite poor and come from very humble background. Some of them are married with children at home and they need help. We must show, as Singaporeans, more compassion and concern for them. We must be concerned about how Singaporeans, as employers, and our Government as a host country, treat these ladies. We must be respectful of them and give them the dignity and respect as human beings. Their host countries and their citizens will be observing us to see how caring we are of their citizens. Our Government has, directly or indirectly, done credibly well in terms of caring for these foreign domestic workers. In terms of these maids entering into Singapore, there are laws in the Ministry of Manpower to observe, and there is some insurance coverage on a compulsory basis. There are also criminal laws in Singapore to ensure that those abusing their maids are prosecuted once such offences are brought to the attention of the Police and the public prosecutors. 2.30 pm Sir, we can do more and help to improve their lives and skills. I would like the Ministry to use the maid levy of about $345 per month to give maximum benefit to the maids. The Government gets almost $15 million per month on maid levy. Why can we not use part of it for maids to have their own equivalent of our CPF, say, a minimum of $50 a month?”
“Sir, with your leave, I am withdrawing and not proceeding with this cut. Much obliged.”
“One thorny issue that crops up often but seldom gets a full airing is the issue of Malays doing National Service. What is the ratio mix of NSmen in the SAF and Police National Service currently? Compared to our population of Chinese, Malays and Indians, what is the percentage of Malays in the military and the Police National Service? What is the percentage in the Army, Navy and Air Force? There is, for many years, the perception that Malays are not to be given sensitive positions in the military. Why not? Is it because of the sensitive Malay-Muslim population in this region and because of Malaysia and Indonesia? Would our Malays be sitting on the fence if there is a conflict between Singapore and Malaysia or Indonesia? What if there is a conflict with India or China? Would the Indians or Chinese be sitting on the fence too? We should treat all citizens alike and the nation and its leaders must be confident of its citizens to be loyal. During confrontation in the early 1960s, the Malays defended Singapore against Indonesia, so did the Chinese and Indians. There should not be a mental discrimination against race in the Singapore Armed Forces or Police Force National Service.”
“Sir, National Service has become a way of life in Singapore. Many of us, male citizens in Parliament, have undergone military or Police National Service since its inception in the 1960s. In the old days, military or Police National Service personnel had to do two or three years of NS, depending on the rank he held. It could be asked: how productive was he during these 2-3 years? What is the productivity level of National Servicemen undergoing 2½ years of NS today? Is there a need to serve that long? Could the Minister consider reducing National Service liability, in a few years' time, say, with effect from 2006 or 2007, to 1½ years instead of 2½ years, so that our young NSmen, while serving the nation, could go on to be more productive in studies and working life as soon as possible? A great deal of their training may be repetitive and unnecessary. Alternatively, NS could be served during university or polytechnic holiday periods. It has been constantly discussed by our people and leaders whether National Service should be extended to females once they attain 18 years of age. Thus far, the Ministry has not favoured it. Should this be reviewed? Should it be considered on a voluntary basis or should it be compulsory plus voluntary basis, serving perhaps, for one year, and beyond that, on a voluntary basis of another half year if it is going to be 1½ years? Should they not be given a chance to serve the nation too like men, maybe not in a combat role except those who are really keen to do so? They could easily be assigned to do many jobs in the military or Police, including administrative, planning, medical, etc. Also, this will ensure that they keep fit and will learn and appreciate what NS is all about and be loyal to the nation.”
“Sir, the taxi service in Singapore has generally improved over the years. Taxis are clean and the drivers are generally courteous. One problem, Sir, is around midnight when it may be difficult to get a taxi. This has to do with midnight charges. Another problem, Sir, is the various charges we have to pay for a taxi ride. There is a basic charge, a midnight charge, an electronic road pricing charge, early morning and evening charges in the Central Business District. All these can be confusing to our people. When I go to court early in the morning in the Central Business District, say, from home, all or most of these charges come into play. I just pay what is asked for by the taxi driver without querying because it may be time-consuming, and the taxi driver may be a little impatient, having to explain. Once in a while when we ask, they do explain. Could the Ministry try and fine-tune all these taxi charges so that it is simple and easy to understand for the lay persons? Let there be one charge generally. The cost element, Sir, also should be considered. If there are less charges imposed by the Land Transport Authority on road tax, taxi licences, etc, and also by taxi companies which own the taxis, in terms of rentals of taxi, reduced petrol charges by petrol companies, etc, then we might see the taxi fares, which commuters need to pay, reduce or maintain at today's level. Certificates of Entitlement”
“Sir, I would also strongly urge our Government to give more space and freedom to our civic organisations and non-governmental organisations to express their views, organise public forums, with no or minimal restrictions. The Police permits constantly asked for should be waived in most, if not all, cases, except very sensitive cases which affect peace and public security in Singapore. Let the responsibility lie with the management committees of these societies which are organising these functions. This will create more excitement and colour to our lives in Singapore. We must have more faith in our citizens, have the confidence even to allow them to be different and even to challenge the Government fairly on various issues. There are many volunteers who are genuinely interested in wanting to contribute and make the changes and improve Singaporeans' lives. Some of these have been roped in by the Government at the last elections to serve the country too. I wish them all the very best in high office. Our Government seems to be opening up the last few years, and for this, we must thank the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet. More should be done with confidence and I am sure our people will respond positively. Efficiency in the Police Force”
“Sir, it is commendable that the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Registry of Societies have taken positive steps lately in expediting matters like registration of certain societies under the Societies Act through the newly implemented Registry of Societies Electronic System (ROSES). It is also positive to know that there are better feedback sessions between the Ministry and Registry of Societies with our citizens, civic society organisations to improve the system and liberalisation of civic organisation activities. In order to assist new societies, Sir, and the 5,000 odd registered societies in Singapore, may I suggest that certain payments be waived, or reduced, under the Societies' regulations. As it stands now currently, under the Societies' regulations, for instance, to register a society costs about $400, to change the place of business or registered society, $25, the name of a registered society, $55, etc. And also under the regulations, every application to inspect or to be supplied with a copy of or extract from any document from the Registry of Societies also requires some form of payment. For instance, inspection of a document is $35; search, $5 and copy of a document extract, $10 per page. Perhaps, these amounts could be reduced, if not, eradicated completely. We must be more generous with our voluntary organisations. They are not rich like our state is. The electronic filing under the ROSES fees should be cheaper, or should be waived. Would the Ministry please consider my plea so that more activities could be created by volunteers without worrying about fees payable?”
“Lastly, Sir, are there facilities within the prison for work-related activities and facilities for studies for prisoners? We must do our level best to give these prisoners a second chance in life. Perhaps the Minister could give us an update of the new Changi Prison Complex. There should also be better access for spouses, children, parents, siblings and relatives to see prisoners, so that prisoners would always be in touch with their loved ones, and this must be good and rehabilitative in nature. Rehabilitation of Prisoners”
“Let us really analyse these things with impartial specialists in criminal law and sentencing, so that we come up with a better system of sentencing convicted persons. There is also often talk, Sir, amongst criminal legal practitioners about the "yellow book" which guides the Subordinate Courts judiciary on the tariffs to be imposed in criminal cases. If so, should that book be made available to the public or, at least, to the criminal bar so that accused persons can be advised on possible sentencing for the crimes they have committed. This would save the courts' time. Is it in some ways superseding the written laws as Parliament has passed the punishment for each offence in the Penal Code and other criminal statutes in Singapore? Perhaps, it was all meant well for efficacy and sound management. That is all right. But, most importantly, it must be emphasised that Subordinate Courts judges must be given the full discretion within the law which Parliament has passed and, overall, there must be compassion and long-term reformation of prisoners when sentences are imposed on convicted persons. We have a good and efficient prison system. Can we improve the prison system in Singapore? With the new Prison Complex to be located at Changi and which will be ready soon, there will be greater facilities available, I am sure. I do hope that a good system is in place for rehabilitation and reformation of prisoners.”
“Sir, the sentencing system in Singapore appears to emphasise on deterrence as the most effective measure to deal with persons convicted of crimes. Whilst this may be one of the effective ways of dealing with convicted accused persons, one could ask: what happens to persons who are sent to prison, especially for a long period of imprisonment? I would urge the Ministry of Home Affairs to review the effectiveness of deterrence and long imprisonment sentences to serve the cause of justice. Would it be better if shorter imprisonment terms are given, especially for first-time offenders, and coupled with long compulsory community service, including work in charitable homes, old folks home, hospitals, etc? This may make them better citizens rather than angry and frustrated people when they come out of prison. A task force could be formed, encompassing the Ministries of Home Affairs and Law, Attorney-General's Chambers, the courts, the Law Society and the Law Faculty of the National University of Singapore, to analyse critically and carefully the best ways to deal with different people who are sentenced for different crimes. There are also other forms of sentences available which are seldom utilised by the courts. They are probation, conditional and unconditional discharges under the Probation of Offenders Act, reformation, rehabilitation and retribution. Our courts do not seem to exercise the discretion so willingly to adopt these forms of sentencing lately. Why is that? Are these dead letters in our statutes book? Do we have a strict court system that is overly deterrent-minded? Does it work well for our criminal justice system and the long-term interest of prisoners and our society? And, if so, is this the best route to take?”
“It might not have been a priority in the last two or three decades, but I think as the years go by, it would be more and more important as these emerging nations do come to the forefront. I think it is good to build relations now for our future generation of citizens. Is there greater involvement with countries in these regions? Do we have ambassadors, roving ambassadors, charge d'affaires, with these countries? If not, why not? If not, do we see a positive move towards increasing the involvment with these other nations? Perhaps we should also consider having exchange programmes with these countries, between civil servants, parliamentarians, university scholars, students and also civil society groups and government-related agencies. Japan”
“Madam, in terms of foreign relations, Singapore has conducted itself quite well as a friendly nation with our neighbours in ASEAN and in the eyes of the United Nations and the world at large. The only problem, although it may not be a major one, seems to be with Malaysia, over a few issues that have been pending for some time. As the hon. Minister has indicated, this can happen with friendly neighbours. We hope that, with the new Prime Minister, Abdullah Badawi, this problem would be minimised, if not resolved completely. As an observation, Madam, it is important that personalities play a secondary role in the merits of our respective cases and also the give-and-take attitude to come to an amicable settlement. It is important that what we have seen in our case with Malaysia, because of the relationship perhaps between the personalities at the helm, some problems have been created. I hope things will improve with the new Prime Minister of Malaysia, coming out with the friendly relations that we have now and I hope positive results would be forthcoming as soon as possible. I would like to ask the Hon. Minister if there are time-lines which both Malaysia and Singapore have agreed upon to resolve outstanding issues like water supply, railway matter, Malaysian rights to the raillway properties, the CPF issue, etc, because these do affect citizens of both countries. I would also like to enquire what are our foreign relations policies with regard to countries other than ASEAN? For instance, countries in West Asian countries, Arabian countries, African, South American, East European and Central American nations.”
“It may be a difficult task, but it is something perhaps we can consider and come out with some guidelines. Consumer Protection”
“Sir, I would like to talk on banking and sharing of wealth in Singapore. The issue of a bank licence in Singapore by the Monetary Authority of Singapore is done, I am sure, with great care. Very few people benefit as directors of companies issued with bank licences and, as indicated earlier, there are very few in Singapore with a bank licence that is local. No doubt, there are market forces, and it is left to individuals to be directors of banks and, very often, we find quite a lot of family members of certain banks where there is a continuous flow of these members coming into the picture. I would like to suggest, Sir, whilst directors of banks may remain directors for a long time, there should be some sort of rule or regulation regulating the number of years a person can be a director of a bank so that there is a spread of directorship and, therefore, the spread of wealth amongst citizens of Singapore. Some of these directors may remain for decades. Is that fair when there is the issue of licence being issued by the state to a restricted number of companies? Therefore, it is very difficult for ordinary people to gain an access into directorships of banks. They may be shareholders, and that is the other issue I would like to raise, ie, the issue of shareholding amongst individuals and citizens in Singapore, whether there should be a cap on the number of shares that can be held by directors of companies owning banks, so that there would be a spread of wealth in the form of the spread of shareholdings amongst citizens. Very often, we find in banks that the major shareholders are actually the directors of banks. Therefore, if this can be looked into so that there is a better spread of wealth, it is something our citizens would appreciate.”