S Jayakumar
Singapore
“It is well and good for countries to announce various targets and emissions. But one vexing issue ultimately is: what will be the method for verifying compliance with each country's announced measures? Another vexing issue, of course, is the issue of financing.”
“I would appreciate it if she were to give me some specifics of the negative feedback. But the general feedback I have had about our judiciary, both of the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts, has been nothing but positive.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the information that I have is that there is always medical advice present when caning is administered and that if the medical opinion is that caning cannot proceed beyond a certain point, that medical opinion will be observed and the caning will not proceed.”
“Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent announcement to make immediate improvements to the public transport system (a) whether the Ministry has set a timeline for the increase in frequency of feeder bus services; and (b) whether the Ministry can immediately target such services that are currently running at…”
“SCDF will continue to work with HDB and other relevant agencies to ensure that such older buildings with one exit staircase meet the prevailing fire safety requirements when they undergo major renovation or upgrading works. CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS 3.”
“The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Teo Ser Luck) (for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Mrs Jessie Phua's and Dr Lim Wee Kiak's questions together as they both relate to the same issues.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,291 lines we hold for S Jayakumar, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 66.
“Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the remaining items on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang]. LEGAL PROFESSION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.42 pm”
“The second point concerns Mr Noris Ong's comment that this rule ought to be made obligatory or mandatory for certain types of important contracts, like purchase of property and cars. It is important for me to stress and clarify that this Bill is not intended to be a consumer protection measure. That is an important point. Although I can see that some, including Mr Noris Ong, may see the benefits for some consumers, the purport of this law is not a consumer protection measure. The purpose is not to impose liabilities on businesses against their wishes. What then is the purpose? The purpose is really to meet the needs of parties who contractually wish to confer rights on third parties but find it inconvenient or not possible to do so under the existing law. So the new law is to give them a convenient way or method to achieve the objectives of conferring rights to third parties. If the contracting party has no intention to confer rights on third parties, then we would not want to force an unintended consequence on unwilling parties. In other words, the basic principle is to give effect to the intention of the contracting parties. And that principle of giving effect to the intention of contracting parties is a cardinal principle in the law of contract. So, it would be difficult for me to accept the proposal of Mr Noris Ong because it would mean departing from that cardinal principle. It also means that the legislation will interfere with the parties' freedom to contract. I hope my explanations have clarified these points. Question put, and agreed to. 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. - [Prof. Jayakumar].”
“And if an oral contract were to meet the requirements, then the Bill would apply. Indeed, Sir, examples which were given in the report of the United Kingdom Law Reform Commission indicated that even there, the Law Commission envisaged application of the new law to oral contract and examples included the purchase of wedding gifts in a department store. Mr Noris Ong has raised at least two points to which I should respond. First, the six-month period. Let me clarify, Sir, first, that the six-month period does not mean that parties who wish to benefit would actually have to wait for six months. I hope my Second Reading speech made it clear that it really provides for a two-stage process for the new law to come into operation. During the initial six months, parties who wish to benefit from the new law immediately can expressly opt into the new law and take advantage of it. This phasing-in period actually is to allow time for lawyers and the public to be educated about the new law so that there will be less risk of confusion once the new law comes completely into force after the phasing-in period. Let me add also that the United Kingdom also adopted this six-month phasing-in period, and I am not aware of any negative consequences or effects from that approach. In any case, it occurs to me that even if we did not have the six-month period written into the Bill, I think we would still have to provide for sufficient time before the commencement of the Bill for the lawyers and other sectors of society to familiarise themselves with the new law. If we did not so provide, I think there will be some inconvenience. Lawyers who are ready to take advantage of this new law, for example, in preparing corporate finance instruments, would then be forced to wait.”
“I thank Mr Chandra Mohan and Mr Noris Ong for their support of the Bill and I will turn to the comments that they have made. First, a general point was made by Mr Chandra Mohan as to whether parliamentarians could have access to information or materials which the relevant Ministries may have, on the basis of which Bills and amendments are proposed in this House. Let me say that it has always been the approach of my Cabinet colleagues and myself that where Members request for such information, we will be happy to consider it. But it is best that specific requests be made according to the particular issue that is before the House because the Ministry may have a whole array of files and papers and the Member concerned may be interested in one particular part of the Bill. And if he can tailor the request accordingly, I am sure the Ministry will be happy to oblige. In this particular case, the basic materials and research were done by the Law Reform and Revision Division of the Attorney-General's Chambers and they produced most of the essential research work. And if the Member is interested, I will be happy to furnish him with a copy of that report. He raised one substantive point and that is to seek clarification whether the Bill only covers written contracts or would it also cover oral contracts. To that, I would respond by saying that the Bill does not distinguish between oral contracts and written contracts, and by normal interpretation of the word "contract", it would also include oral contracts, granted that some of the requirements in the Bill may be more easily fulfilled by a written contract than an oral contract. But I should think that it is not impossible for an oral contract to meet them.”
“It will also allow time for publicity on the new law to reach various sectors, the legal profession, the business community and the public. In the meantime, having an opt-in regime during the first six months will allow contracting parties who wish to take advantage of the new law to do so immediately. In conclusion, Sir, let me say that in the drafting of this Bill, feedback from various agencies such as the Ministry of Trade and Industry, Ministry of Finance, the Law Society as well as leading academics and practitioners were sought. Parties consulted were generally supportive of the Bill, and felt that the change was a positive and commercially progressive one. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Clause 4 provides that any defence which the promisor can use against a claim by the other contracting party will also be usable against a claim by a third party. Clause 5 preserves the right of the contracting parties to sue each other on the contract, notwithstanding the existence of third party rights. Clause 6 protects the promisor from double liability. Clause 7 sets out a list of subject matter to which the Bill will not apply. The list includes: contracts of employment; negotiable instruments; contracts for carriage of goods by sea covered by the Bills of Lading Act; contracts for carriage of goods by air covered by the Carriage by Air Act; contracts for international carriage of goods by land which are covered by such international conventions as may be prescribed by the Minister; and contracts formed among a company and members of a company as a result of the memorandum and articles of associations of the company. Sir, contracts of employment are excluded so that employees who breach their duties to their employers will not be exposed to law suits from their employers' customers. The customer's remedy should be against the employer, not the employee. The other categories are excluded because these are areas of laws where clear and established rules have already emerged concerning the rights of third parties and the limitation to such rights. As regards commencement, let me say that the Bill will come into operation in two stages. During the first six months of its operation, the new law will apply to a contract only if the parties expressly opt into the new regime. This will change to an opt-out regime after six months. The six-month phasing-in period will ensure that parties who are in the midst of negotiating contracts are not taken unawares by the new law.”
“It will bring, in my view, certainty to the law and help to lower legal costs incurred by business. If I may now turn to the provisions of the Bill, the provisions are essentially modelled after the United Kingdom's Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act, which came into force in November 1999. It provides a detailed legislative scheme spelling out when a third party will have the right to enforce a contract and how a third party's rights can be exercised. Clause 2 of the Bill provides that a third party would have the right to enforce a term of a contract in one of two situations: Firstly, where the contract says so expressly; or Secondly, where the term purports to confer a benefit on the third party unless, on a proper interpretation of the contract, the contracting parties did not intend the third party to have the right to enforce it. Clause 2, paragraph (3), provides that the third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name, class or description. However, there is no requirement that the third party should be in existence when the contract is made. This allows contracting parties, for example, to confer enforceable rights on an unborn child or a future spouse or a company that has not yet been incorporated. Clause 3 provides that the parties to a contract lose their right to vary the contract without the consent of a third party beneficiary if: Firstly, the third party has communicated his assent of the term to the promisor; or Secondly, the third party has relied on the term, and the promisor is either aware of the third party's reliance on it; or can reasonably be expected to have foreseen that the third party would rely on the term.”
“Therefore, the Law Reform and Revision Division of the Attorney-General's Chambers reviewed the third party rule in Singapore and has recommended this amending law which the Government agreed to. With this reform, Singapore's law will then be in line with developments in other advanced economies of the world, including the leading international financial centres, such as New York and London. The "third party rule" has already been abrogated throughout much of the common law world; in countries such as the United States, New Zealand, parts of Australia and, most recently, in the UK. Most member states of the European Union also recognise and enforce the rights of third party beneficiaries under contracts. Sir, this reform is clearly needed as it enables carrying out the intention of contracting parties to confer benefits on third parties. The third party rule, as it stands, causes injustice to a third party who may have reasonable expectations about his rights under the contract and, for example, may have arranged his affairs accordingly. The third party rule has led to many ad hoc statutory and common law exceptions to circumvent the inconvenient effects of the third party rule. It has also led to complicated legal documentation and consequently higher legal costs. In the example I gave earlier, to overcome the effect of the third party rule, additional legal documentation, such as an assignment of rights, a collateral warranty or a deed of indemnity, would have to be effected. All these and the resulting litigation cause legal uncertainty and it is commercially not convenient. This law reform Bill will facilitate business and contractual practice by providing a simple method to give third parties rights to enforce a contract.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Sir, this Bill is essentially a law reform measure, what I would call lawyer's law. It is to reform the law by making provision for enforcement of contractual terms by third parties. By way of background, let me say that, at present, under the general principle of law, a person who is not a party to a contract has no legal right to enforce the contract, even if the contracting parties intended the contract to confer a benefit on him. This principle is known as the "third party rule". For example, under the third party rule, a person who bought a house on the resale market will have no contractual recourse against the housing developer for defects in the house even though the developer had contractually agreed with the original purchaser to confer a benefit on subsequent purchasers. This is because, unlike a person who bought direct from the developer, the resale buyer has no direct contractual relationship with the developer. Another instance is where a couple is getting married, and a relative goes to a shop where a wedding list is kept, buys them whatever gift, a dining table or sofa set, as a wedding present and arranges to have it delivered directly to them. It is made clear in the discussions with the shop that holds the list that the item is a gift for the couple. Under the third party rule, the couple would not have any recourse against the shop, because they were not parties to the contract. Any action against the shop for breach of contract would have to be taken by the relative who was one of the original contracting parties. We inherited this third party rule from England and it forms part of the law of contract. The United Kingdom, however, itself has modified the third party rule.”
“I thought that the Senior Minister had answered this question quite comprehensively in the press conference. He had explained that this matter had been discussed for some time. There had been some difficulties. He had discussed this with the Prime Minister whether, given his past experience of having discussed with Dr Mahathir, he should take a crack at it. Senior Minister got the agreement and approval of the Prime Minister to proceed. He explained this fully in the press conference. There ought not to be any speculation. One more point - the Senior Minister, in all the negotiations, made it clear that the agreements and discussions that had taken place will, of course, be subject to the agreement of the Prime Minister. SINGAPORE EXCHANGE (Suspension of trading of Links shares) 7. Mrs Lim Hwee Hua asked the Deputy Prime Minister, in the light of the recent disquiet over the suspension of trading of certain shares, what steps will be taken to reassure the investing public that the Singapore Exchange will adequately explain (i) the circumstances for any suspension of the trading of shares; (ii) the justification for the period of suspension, if resumption is not readily contemplated; and (iii) how it attempts to treat all affected shareholders fairly. 8. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked the Deputy Prime Minister if the Singapore Exchange rules need to be reviewed to make it more equitable in the light of the Links Island case.”
“If we look back at the CIQ issue - what was the key issue in the CIQ? The key issue was that wherever the CIQ is located, where sovereign functions are being performed - such as immigration and customs - it must be with the consent of Singapore. That was the key issue on the controversy. As events developed and there was an exchange of letters, it was not controverted by Malaysians. If the CIQ was located here, it is with the consent of Singapore. If that basic issue is not challenged, then we can discuss where else the CIQ can be located. But that is the key principle.”
“If I understand Mr Leong Horn Kee, what he is saying is that the new price should only apply to the extension of agreements after 2011 and after 2061, and that the existing price be untouched. We did assessments and in the negotiations, it was considered that this proposal to adjust the existing price - which is not a legal obligation on our side - was a factor to advance the negotiations. So we may not be able to make any advance if that package did not have that element.”
“Sir, Foreign Ministers have some abilities, but one of the abilities is not to be able to predict future events! This is where we have reached after many years of discussions. The whole package has evolved. At one time, it was electric train (fast train) - POA-water. It evolved to water-and-loan. Then it evolved to POA-water-bridge-tunnel. I think we have taken it as far as we can to this point. It is in our interest to try to wrap it up as early as possible. The Senior Minister explained in his press conference why that is so. Both countries face various challenges and problems. The region also faces problems. So, as we tackle these problems, let us not be bedevilled by these outstanding problems. And when the Senior Minister said that, that was before 11th September. You have heard Minister George Yeo and Minister for Finance talking about how the global economy and the region may be affected by the recent terrorist attacks. So both countries and the region face enormous challenges and therefore it is good for both countries to try to put these behind us. Will there be more surprises and twists and turns? I cannot guarantee that but, certainly, I hope that, and am sure, all Members of the House share my hope that will not happen.”
“Sir, I do not have with me the details. My Ministry does not deal with the details of water price by PUB. All I am able to say, at this stage, for the reasons I have given, is that whatever price increase may take place, it will be manageable. The details will be given to this House at a later stage. When we agreed to various increases, and when we put forward certain proposals, have we made our calculations? I think the House must expect that, yes, we do not put forward proposals lightly. We have to take into account what advances our interests, what we can manage, and we will not put forward a proposal - particularly on the price of water - that we are unable to justify to ourselves. So, our national interests are always at the back of our mind in such international negotiations. As to the KTM lands, let me say that this is really not a new issue. If Members cast their minds back to 1997, Prime Minister spoke to this House on the difficulties about the POA and his approach to solving the problems with Malaysia within the context of a framework of wider cooperation. He already mentioned that if there is a framework of wider cooperation and there can be a resolution of a package of items, he is prepared "notwithstanding the terms of the POA, to agree to the joint development of the KTM land in Bukit Timah, in addition to the agreed three parcels of land referred to in the POA." In other words, as part of the overall package deal - we are not under an obligation to include the additional land in Bukit Timah - but if we want to advance the process and to solve the package, he is prepared to consider this as part of the package deal. And that is the approach we have taken.”
“I wish I could answer Mr Iswaran by giving a clear date when it is expected to be concluded. But I am unable to do so for the reason that there are very many details on important matters to be sorted out. What I can say is that, certainly on our side and also on the Malaysian side, the desire is to resolve this as soon as possible because we really have to put this behind us.”
“I thank Mr Inderjit Singh for his questions. The first question concerns CPF, and the answer to the question is that it is a withdrawal by individuals. Whether it will put Singaporeans at a disadvantage, let me say that, as I mentioned in my main answer, the withdrawal is for Malaysians who were working here and who have returned to Malaysia permanently. So that would be an important consideration. On the question whether I have with me the current market value of the 12 plots at Bukit Timah, I do not have that particular detail with me. The third question was, with regard to a general point, whether we expect any new agreement to be implemented considering our experience with the POA. Let me say that, as with any international negotiation with any country, we must approach the deal in good faith that both sides will keep to the terms of the agreement when we do settle the details and finalise the agreement, and it is signed. The items in the bilateral package would have to form part of a new written agreement which has to be formally concluded between the two countries. And the two countries would be bound under international law to comply with the terms of the agreement. Therefore, I would not want to speculate on a situation where the Malaysians choose not to abide by the terms, and so on. Let me also point out something which both the Prime Minister and I have mentioned on a previous occasion when a similar question was raised and, that is, as these agreements are major agreements between Malaysia and Singapore, both the Prime Minister and I have said that it is the intention that we should come to Parliament and place the agreements before the House after it has been signed.”
“Sir, perhaps I should be a bit more circumspect in talking about law firms advertising, because that must be dealt with by the profession, as to the circumstances in which law firms can advertise and so on. But as far as this Bill is concerned, it does not prevent a lawyer or an advocate and solicitor from practising patent law. And perhaps if you look at the bottom of page 6 of the Bill, new section 105(1) says: 'An individual shall not carry on a business, practise or act as a patent agent unless he is a registered patent agent, or an advocate and solicitor, [this is the key point] .' Then you look at page 7, paragraph (4)(c) which says, "giving advice .. about the validity, or infringement, of patents." New section 105(1) deals with the situation of practising as a patent agent. New section 105(5) is a provision which deals with holding oneself out as a registered patent agent. It says: 'An individual shall not - (b) in the course of a business otherwise describe himself, hold himself out or permit himself to be described or held out as a "patent agent",' So it is an interplay of these different provisions that brought about the position that I have described in my answer to his question. Question put, and agreed to. 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. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 1.30 pm”
“But he also based his concern on the IPOS Bill when he said that there was a provision requiring intellectual property advisers to be registered. I think Prof. Chin might have misinterpreted the provisions in the IPOS Bill, because there is no provision which requires IP advisers to be registered. What he might be thinking about is the enabling provision in the IPOS Bill which at some time in the future, if and when the situation requires, would enable the statutory board to bring about a situation of registration. But there is, as such, no requirement now under the law for an IP adviser to be registered, and we explained in this House why the situations can arise where the enabling provision might have to be invoked. So his concern that there may be multiple registrations is, in fact, not the case. Sir, I hope I have explained all the concerns of Prof. Chin and I am glad that he has noted that there can be serious consequences if persons who are not qualified to act as registered patent agents were to do so and in the course of doing so, commit a serious mistake. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, I thank the Minister for his clarifications. I would just like to confirm that even under the Bill, if passed and brought into force, a law firm can therefore still engage in the practice of patent law. But do I understand him to say that they could also advertise themselves as being in the practice of patent law, even if they do not have any partner registered as a patent agent?”
“Let me stress why this is important because we do not want the public to be confused and to be under the impression that partners in the firm have gone through this rigorous qualification process and have obtained the qualifications to become registered patent agents when they are not. This position that we have in this amending Bill has, in fact, been adopted from the model in Australia, and it has worked well there. I am told that it has not raised any problems concerning the legal profession there. Prof. Chin, in a sense, in his comments, has expressed concern whether the provisions are too strict. And in the closing part of what he said expressed concern whether it would be too wide, that illustrates the problem which we have to attend to. In the present model, any lawyer can practise patent law. Any lawyer can hold himself out as a registered patent agent. Sections 104 and 105, which we are now seeking to amend, as they stand, would require a law firm or a company to have every one of the partners and every one of the directors to be a registered patent agent, which I think is too strict. So, what we are seeking to do is to say that at least one of the partners ought to be a registered patent agent. I think this is a reasonable balance because, in a law firm, you may have many other partners being conversant and competent in different areas. And, as I said, this practice has worked well in Australia and I think it ought to work well for our purposes. Sir, Prof. Chin has expressed concern over the possibility of over regulation. I hope that, to some extent, I have allayed that concern because, partly, it stems from his interpretation of the provisions that it may prevent lawyers from engaging in the practice of patent law.”
“Sir, I thank Prof. Chin for supporting the Bill. He has raised a few questions which I have to clarify. Let me first explain the present situation and what the Bill seeks to do. Under the present situation, any lawyer and any law firm can advise on patent law and patent application process. Any lawyer and law firm, at the moment, can hold himself and the firm as a patent agent. What the amendment seeks to do is to restrict the instances of any lawyer or law firm holding themselves out as a registered patent agent. But we will not prevent a law firm or lawyer from continuing to be engaged in the practice of patent law. I will make that overall clarification first. Now, I will turn to his specific question. First, he asked whether he has read clause 14 correctly, ie, no one, individual, partner or director, can refer to himself as a patent agent unless the individual is a registered patent agent or the firm has at least one partner or director as a registered patent agent. Indeed, that is so, and his reading of it is correct. But Prof. Chin is not correct when he goes on to extrapolate from this that this means that a law firm from now onwards will not be able to say that they are in the practice of patent law. This is incorrect, because lawyers and law firms can continue to be engaged in the practice of patent law. In fact, I would say that they will even be able to advertise the fact that they can advise on patent law. What they cannot do is to say that they are registered patent agents or firm of patent agents.”
“I also hope that some attempt be made to rationalise these provisions with the provision in the IPOS Act concerning intellectual property advisers. Otherwise we shall be requiring multiple registrations. For example, lawyers who want to be in patent law practice, they may have to register as intellectual property advisers, patent agents and, of course, advocates and solicitors. Is this really what we intend? Sir, I hope the Minister would be prepared to look into the prospect of future amendments, if needed. And on that note, I support the Bill.”
“This interpretation could cause immense problems for the well-established law firms, which usually employ foreign patent agents, to draft the technical parts of a patent application. Once the new provisions come into force, will these firms still be able to call themselves as being in the practice of patent law? If not, would this not be regarded as a drawback to developing a strong legal practice in patent law and indeed in intellectual property law? On the other hand, I am also concerned that by employing just one registered patent agent as a partner or director, a law firm can then immediately advertise itself as being in patent law practice. I am sure that we do not want law firms who are not adequately equipped with intellectual property law expertise to elevate themselves into this lucrative but specialised practice of patent application. I agree with the Minister that a botched patent application can cause an inventor millions of dollars. Should we then not look very seriously at other criteria concerning this matter of who or what firm can be called properly patent law agents or patent law attorneys? Secondly, I am also troubled by the fact that in February, when we debated the IPOS Bill, there was then a provision requiring intellectual property advisers to be registered. I raised the concern then that this might be over regulating and that the scope of that section was too wide. Here, I wonder whether we are also drawing the correct line in specifying that a firm with a registered patent agent as a partner can describe itself as being in the business of patent law but not otherwise. While I support the Bill in general, I hope that more attention would be paid to this issue.”
“It also extends the protection of visiting aircraft and ships from patent infringement proceedings to ships and aircraft from WTO countries, and will remove doubts concerning the Minister's rule-making powers. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of this Bill, which is a further step in building the legal infrastructure necessary to sustain a knowledge-based economy. This House debated the setting up of the Intellectual Property Office (IPOS) only in February. Now we are looking at another dimension of intellectual property, namely, patents. In particular, this Bill seeks to regulate further the patenting system in Singapore, which means the provision for a register of patent agents in Singapore. This is an important legal institution in an economy that places a premium on creativity and enterprise. Sir, I would like to seek clarifications on a couple of matters relating to the registration of patent agents and their practice. First, if I read clause 14 correctly, no one, individual, partner or director, can refer to himself, the partnership or the company respectively as a patent agent or patent attorney unless the individual, partner or director is a registered patent agent. Can the Minister confirm that this is the position? If so, would this mean that no lawyer or law firm can actually say that they are in the practice of patent law? Clause 14 contains a new section 105(4) which describes what the practice of a patent agent is. This seems to describe also what certain law firms currently are doing in their intellectual property departments. Can they continue to do so if they do not have a partner or director who is registered as a patent agent?”
“Our system is more in line with that of Australia, where there are no specialised patents courts, and thus no special rights of audience in the courts for patent agents. Let me stress that no accrued rights are affected by this change as there are as yet no registered patent agents in Singapore. Let me touch on other minor amendments, Sir. First, as regards the removal of dependency on a patent being in force in the United Kingdom, section 36(4) provides for rules that require the submissions of renewals of patents registered under the repealed Registration of United Kingdom Patents Act, to be accompanied by a statutory declaration that the patent remains in force or has not been revoked in the United Kingdom. We are removing this restriction as the renewal of a Singapore patent, in our view, should not be dependent on whether it is in force in the United Kingdom, and a proprietor should be free to maintain his Singapore patent. This is provided in clause 8(b). Next, section 116(3) is a transitional provision that provides for the continued validity of patents previously registered under the repealed Registration of United Kingdom Patents Act, as long as the patent is not revoked in the United Kingdom. We are similarly removing this condition. Finally, Sir, the Bill also includes amendments that will modify certain procedural requirements relating to applications and grants of patents, facilitate the implementation of an electronic patent register and the maintenance of information in an electronic environment, and dispense with the need to gazette new entrants to the Paris Convention and WTO as convention countries.”
“The National Science and Technology Board will assist in co-funding the course fees and payment of an allowance to the applicants during internship (if the applicant is co-sponsored by a corporate body), through its Manpower Upgrading for Science and Technology (MUST) programme. Thirdly, the applicants will have to pass a qualifying examination set by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore. Provisions would be put in place to enable flexibility in meeting certain registration requirements such as waivers of certain components, courses, as are adopted in other countries. As regards transitional arrangements for IP lawyers currently practising as patent agents, some lawyers today are already using the term "patent agent" to describe themselves. As such, provisions will be made in the rules to allow lawyers who currently have an active patent practice to register themselves as patent agents, without having to go through the qualifying examinations. This approach has been worked out in consultation with the Law Society of Singapore and the Asian Patent Attorneys Association (Singapore Chapter). But we have to be satisfied that they indeed have had an active patent practice. As regards rights of audience, clause 13(a) of the Bill will amend section 94(1) to provide that only registered patent agents and lawyers may represent parties in proceedings before the Registrar of Patents. Clause 13(c) will amend section 94(2) to provide that only lawyers may represent parties in an appeal from the Registrar to the High Court. The current section 94(2) would have allowed registered patent agents to appear in Court. But then this again is a provision adopted from the UK law. In the United Kingdom, this provision posed no difficulties as they have a specialised Patents Court.”
“We believe that Singapore should adopt a more rigorous system of regulation in order to promote our drive to be a regional dynamic intellectual property hub. We should be mindful that a single high-profile mistake, made by an unqualified patent agent whom we have allowed to practise here, could easily damage Singapore's reputation as an IPR hub. The revised sections 104 and 105 therefore provide that only registered patent agents and lawyers are allowed to provide patent agent services. This model was adopted in Australia. Individuals will only be allowed to be registered as patent agents if they meet the qualifying criteria set by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore or benefit from the transitional provisions, all of which will be provided in the Rules. With this amendment, only registered patent agents will be allowed to hold themselves out as patent agents. The qualifying criteria to be set by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore will be similar to those in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Japan. First of all, applicants will have to attend a 16-week foundation course in intellectual property law conducted by the National University of Singapore Law Faculty and obtain a Graduate Certificate in IP Law. Secondly, they will have to undergo a one-year internship programme under the supervision of a prescribed registered patent agent. The Asian Patent Attorneys Association, International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys (FICPI) and the Law Society of Singapore will assist in the securing of both overseas and local placements.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill seeks to modify provisions in the Patents Act concerning the regulation of patent agents and to introduce a number of minor amendments to streamline patent administration and strengthen the patent legal framework. First, I would touch on the modifications of patent agents provisions. Sir, clause 14 seeks to amend sections 104 and 105 of the Patents Act to improve the provisions governing the regulation of patent agents. Let me explain, Sir, that when the Patents Act was brought into force in 1995, we delayed the entry into force of sections 104 and 105, in so far as they relate to patent agents. The reason for that was that we wanted to allow time for fledgling patent regime to mature before starting our own patent agent profession. More than five years have now passed since Singapore first had our own indigenous patent regime. I think the time is now right to start our own patent agent profession. However, sections 104 and 105 will have to be modified before bringing them into operation. We seek to modify those provisions after the corresponding provisions in the UK patents law. They place no restrictions on the categories of persons who can provide patent agent services. They merely prohibit persons who are not registered patent agents from describing themselves as patent agents. That situation, Sir, is peculiar to the United Kingdom. All the other major jurisdictions we have studied, for example, the United States, Australia, France, Japan, Germany, and the European Patent Office have a more rigorous regulatory regime. They all require a person to attain certain minimum qualifications before he is allowed to practise as a patent agent.”
“The number of companies being wound-up has been decreasing. In the first half of this year, 120 companies were wound-up, compared to 135 in the second half of last year and 155 in the first half of last year. The number of small and medium companies being wound-up has also been decreasing. 72 companies with paid-up capital of $500,000 or less were wound-up in the first half of this year, compared to 89 in the second half of last year and 100 in the first half of last year. The minimum debt level for the issuance of a statutory demand (which is the first step towards winding-up proceedings) was raised from $2,000 to $10,000 only in September 1999. Given the above statistics, there is no need to review the minimum debt level at this point in time. Nevertheless, Ministry of Law will continue to monitor the situation and consider appropriate measures to take should the need arise in future. PROPERTY TAX OF HDB COOKED FOOD AND WET MARKET STALLS 2. Mr Chew Heng Ching asked the Minister for Finance whether the Government will reduce the property taxes paid by owners of cooked food and wet market stalls in Housing and Development Board food centres in view of the current economic downturn.”
“Although that is the case, we have also provided for ex-gratia payments, and we have revised the ex-gratia payments from time to time, to make sure that any hardship which may be encountered by the compensation quantum, is reduced. I believe that the compensation package was announced in this House. This is not a static matter. We will continuously review the position under the Land Acquisition Act. In particular, we will review the total package under the ex-gratia scheme and see whether there is a need to increase the payments to be made under the ex-gratia scheme. And if need be, we will announce whatever changes that are necessary. Basically, we do take into account whatever hardships that may be caused. But at the end of the day, in Singapore, we cannot adopt the approach which may be prevalent in other countries where the authorities have abundant areas of land to take into account for developmental needs. Ours is a special case, but we are not unaware of the problems caused and we will see whatever we can do to reduce the hardships. Question put, and agreed to. 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. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. LOCAL TREASURY BILLS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.30 pm”
“Sir, as I said in my Second Reading speech, this Bill is really to enable the formation of a new statutory board. Its provisions do not have anything to do with the substantive law or policy on land acquisition. It does not increase the powers presently contained under the law on land acquisition. And the proposed statutory board, the Singapore Land Authority, will not have any independent powers of land acquisition. The SLA will be an agent of the Government, but the power to acquire land continues to vest in the Government. In that sense, there is no real change in the passing of this new Bill concerning land acquisition. That being the case, I am not sure whether this would be the right time to have a detailed debate on land acquisition policy. But I would be happy to engage in a debate with the Member or other Members if they want to have a detailed exchange of views on land acquisition policy. Sir, having said that, let me just make only some general comments. Whatever the position may be in other countries, land in Singapore is a special case, because of the scarcity of land. The Land Acquisition Act which has served us well in the past will continue to be needed. I believe the general approach in land acquisition has served us well. It will still be needed, because, as I have said in this House some years ago, it is not a position of us never having projects in the future in the public interest where we may need to acquire land. The next point is on the compensation approach. We have reviewed the statutory date from time to time, and now the statutory date is 1995.”
“In closing, Sir, let me repeat that land is a scarce resource which has an important role in Singapore's social and economic development. It is vital therefore that we be proactive and innovative in optimising land. The new statutory board, the SLA, will be nimble and innovative to respond to changing needs for land in the overall context of Singapore's economic development in the 21st century. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Sir, if I may now turn to the key aspects of the Bill, clause 5 of the Bill, read together with the First Schedule, provides the constitution of the Board of Directors of the Authority. The Minister for Law will appoint the Chairman and directors of the Board. The Chief Executive of the Authority will be appointed with the approval of the Minister, under clause 11. Clause 6 sets out the mission and functions of the Authority. The Authority shall be charged with the responsibility of optimising scarce land resources, and developing a supporting land information infrastructure. Its broad functions will be to advise the Government on all land-related matters, including acquisition, allocation, tenures and disposal of State lands. Clause 7 sets out the powers of the Authority. Among other things, the Authority will be empowered to form companies and participate in joint ventures. Clause 8 sets out the power of the Authority to request for land related information. Clauses 11 to 13 pertain to appointments of the Chief Executive, officers and employees of the Authority. Clauses 14 to 21 are the financial provisions. The main source of funding for the Authority will be in the form of fees for services and other functions performed. Clauses 22 to 28 provide for the transfer of property, assets, liabilities and employees to the Authority. Property, assets and liabilities, as may be determined by the Minister for Finance, will be transferred to the Authority. About 500 Ministry of Law employees, currently working in the four land departments, will be transferred to the SLA. They will be transferred on terms not less favourable than what they are enjoying immediately before the transfer. Clauses 29 to 38 are general provisions. Clause 35 provides for the preservation of secrecy.”
“In this role, it will make available land for residential, commercial, educational, institutional, social and other purposes having regard to the Concept Plan. It will manage and optimise land use. The SLA will work with the planning agencies as well as private sector bodies to identify new uses, develop rights concerning State land, optimise efficiencies of every transaction and allocate more land based on sound economic principles. Sir, with the formation of the SLA, we will have a more flexible framework for implementing Government's land policies and plans to optimise land use. The SLA will also enable one regulatory body to provide authoritative, comprehensive and easily accessible land information and land management systems. Better land information and management will, in turn, enhance the State's ability to optimise land use, ensure appropriate returns on the land and maintain confidence in the land administration system. The SLA is a necessary infrastructure to support the implementation of the forthcoming 2001 Concept Plan for land use. Master planning of land use will remain a core function under the URA. SLA will, however, complement the land use planning system by implementing more efficient land administration functions such as land alienation, leasing, land acquisition, management of tenancies and vacant lands. This way, it can support the central planning agencies and development authorities to better realise their land use plans. It will also help to better achieve a balance between economic development, flexibility for physical renewal of properties, social growth and cohesion and the protection of our nature reserves and parklands.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, earlier this year, the Government announced that four land departments of the Ministry of Law, namely, the Land Office, the Singapore Land Registry, the Survey Department and the Land Systems Support Unit would be merged to form a new statutory board on 1st June 2001 called the Singapore Land Authority. This Bill before the House provides for the establishment of this new statutory board. Of these four land departments, the Land Office leases and alienates State land and acquires land for the State. It also maintains and manages the State land stock. The Land Registry registers transactions affecting land, issues and guarantees land titles and their tenure, and provides land-ownership and related information. The Survey Department provides cadastral survey plans of land and buildings, maintains and updates the cadastral maps of Singapore and provides geo-spatial information. The Land Systems Support Unit maintains a national land data hub and manages the infrastructure for sharing and distributing digitised land data among public agencies. The objective of setting up the Singapore Land Authority is to streamline functions and to optimise land resources. It is better than having four separate departments carrying out different roles. Sir, Singapore's land resources are limited. As our population increases, more of our island would be built up. We need to manage the land better and put in place mechanisms to intensify the use of land that is already built up, so as to ensure sufficient land to cater for our future needs. The SLA will not own the State land stock, as these lands will remain with the State. But SLA will be the land management agent for the State.”
“Having said that, let me round up by saying that when you talk about ASEAN playing a role in all these different dialogue processes, ultimately, ASEAN must show that it is making serious efforts to get its economic and other acts together so that some of the shine and lustre which have lost will come back. For other countries, other dialogue partners or other organisations, when they deal with ASEAN, they would like to know whether ASEAN is a credible organisation: has it gained stability and some of the dynamism which it was associated before the financial crisis and before many of the countries were beset by political and economic problems? It is critical that ASEAN gets its acts together. Only then, these dialogue relationships can be taken seriously by all parties.”
“There have been other parties who have been involved in this process such as the Special Representative of the United Nations' Secretary-General. On the ASEAN-EU dialogue, and whether Myanmar has been a problem, I would not say that it is Myanmar which has been a problem. If I may elaborate a bit on what I said earlier. It was because the European Union took a stand, and it is a stand which they could not reverse without consensus, that so long as they had the policy, they would not be able to have a meeting in Europe of Foreign Ministers from both sides when the Foreign Minister of Myanmar attends. They had taken a decision that they would not give a visa. Our approach was that we do not dictate to them what their policy should be on Myanmar. But whatever their policy on Myanmar, why should they jeopardise and derail our long-standing dialogue process which ASEAN and EU have had as a group-to-group position? After a postponement of the ASEAN-EU meeting, which was supposed to have taken place in Berlin, and therefore there was an impasse, we had quiet diplomacy between the European and the ASEAN side and we, therefore, made a breakthrough by having the ASEAN-EU Meeting in Vientiane. My suggestion to the European Minister was: it is far better to have the Myanmar Foreign Minister present there, ask him whatever questions you want to ask and let him reply. That is exactly what took place in Vientiane. That dialogue took place, whether the EU were persuaded or not by explanations of the Myanmar Foreign Minister, I do not know. But we were about to get on with other aspects of ASEAN-EU dialogue relationship, which is very important. It is one of the oldest dialogue relationships ASEAN has with other countries.”
“But that is an approach which we believe in, that Australia and New Zealand are countries which ought to be brought into closer interaction and participation in various discussions and forums, whether economic, political or security dialogues in our region. That is the kind of thinking which led us to propose that Australia and New Zealand should be in the East Asia-Latin America Forum. Here again, if there are reservations and voices to the contrary, we will continue to work behind the scene to persuade those whose agreement and consent are necessary. On Myanmar, in response to Mr Ravindran, I would say that Singapore is not a country that has the habit of standing on the roof-top, making a big pronouncement on another country's internal development. But we do, in our own quiet way, from time to time, make known our views, and suggestions to our colleagues in Myanmar, as to how they can help themselves meet some of the criticisms which they face in international forums. This is part of constructive diplomacy. I would say that the other ASEAN Foreign Ministers and I have had useful discussions with our Myanmar counterpart. This is different from their approaches of some of the Western countries. I do not wish to criticise the approach of any other country. Different approaches may be useful in this regard, but you would have noticed that there have been some recent positive developments in Myanmar. It is encouraging to see both the Myanmar government and the opposition engaging in a dialogue. All we can do is to wish them well in this on-going process. I believe that it does show, to some extent, that ASEAN's quiet policy of constructive engagement may be bearing fruit, although I do not think we should take entire credit for it.”
“Some members of ASEAN are involved in APEC and we have some newer initiatives like the East Asia-Latin America Forum. It is in this context that you have to view the ASEAN+3. It is one of many ways of engaging different countries and different regions. The rationale for ASEAN+3 is, as the Member himself said, for Southeast Asia to engage with Northeast Asia. How this process will go, I am not sure, but it is a process that is important because ASEAN has to engage China, Japan and Korea, both in economic cooperation as well as involve them in discussions on matters of security-related issues in Asia. He has made an important point which I fully agree with, and that is, when we participate, all our driving forces in these different circles of engagement with other countries, Singapore's approach is that this cannot be totally closed shop and totally non-inclusive processes. We must be prepared to have an open mind and to welcome others who express an interest. That has been Singapore's approach and it is this approach, for example, that we will continue to adopt, whether it is ARF, where Singapore argued and advocated the participation of India, we supported North Korea and Mongolia's participation. At the same time, it is not something that Singapore can impose its will on others, whose views and positions are necessary to forge a consensus. Behind the scene, we would argue for an open and inclusive process, but it may have to be gradual. This relates to a point that Mr Simon Tay made in an earlier intervention about our approach to Australia and New Zealand which, because of time, we have not had an opportunity to reply.”
“Thirdly, it also involves an education "Train-the-Trainers" programme which would focus on teacher and trainer development and that would focus on teaching skills and resources which would spearhead economic and social developments in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam. We accept 60 vocational, polytechnic and university lecturers annually from these countries who will be attached to our local institutions. In addition to that, the Singapore scholarships that we have under our cooperation programme, which my colleague, Senior Parliamentary Secretary has outlined earlier, would be doubled from 30 to 60 per academic year. I go back to the point that my colleague, Mr Zainul Abidin made. If you view this as too little, not enough, we have to do what we can, but within the limits of our resources. That does not just include individual resources. It also includes what our institutes can cope with. These are not figures to be sniffed at and they are appreciated by the countries in the region. And where we lack the expertise, what we do is to team up with other countries or other agencies, because part of our Singapore Cooperation Programme involves third country training agreements, which we have with other countries, as well as with international organisations, whether it is the UNDP, WTO, World Bank and so on. And sometimes, jointly we run the programme. That enables us to pool resources and perhaps also share expenditure. On his remarks concerning ASEAN+3, here again, I have to recapitulate my fuller answer earlier, and that is, ASEAN must work within several areas of networking. ASEAN plays a role in ARF. We have played a role and will continue to play a role in ASEAN-EU dialogue to engage the Europeans. Then, we have the Asia-Europe Meeting.”
“Sir, to some extent, the questions raised by Mr Simon Tay were fully covered by me in the fuller responses that I have given on the amendments raised by Members in the first part of our debate on Foreign Affairs. What I would do is to recapitulate the key points which I have made. First, Mr Simon Tay wishes to underscore the importance of assisting other countries in ASEAN. I have mentioned earlier that this was a concern that Singapore expressed at the ASEAN Informal Summit and Prime Minister Goh made this a central point at the summit when we spoke about the need for integration. When we talk about the need for integration, we are trying to prevent an ASEAN divide between the founding countries, or those who are better off, and Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, on the other hand. The leaders took note of the need to avoid a two-tier ASEAN. All the proposals that came out from that Informal Summit were with this concern uppermost in the minds of the leaders. If you look at Singapore's contributions to the discussions at the summit, it was not just rhetoric. Prime Minister Goh proposed, and the leaders accepted, some concrete ideas to advance this process of ASEAN integration. Singapore's proposals include, as I said this afternoon, the establishment of Skills Development Training institutes in the four countries. It would involve training of trainers, consultants, researchers in areas such as trade development, export promotion, human resource development and IT. Secondly, a five-year package of IT "Train-the-Trainers" courses for each of these countries. In fact, we have offered 10 IT "Train-the-Trainers" courses for this year.”
“I am the Minister for Law but I must be guided by the legal experts and all legal experts in the Attorney-General's Chambers actually advise us that there is no mandatory obligation to enact specific delegated legislation for the Genocide Convention. But having said that, we are in any case looking at drafts of legislation which we will include in the Penal Code during a broader review of the Penal Code legislation. But because we have been advised that there is no immediate obligation to enact the legislation, we are not treating it with pressing urgency. And some time later, when we have the next round of amendments to the Penal Code, we will see whether we should include provisions of the Genocide Convention. Finally, his point about publicity. Yes, when we have important new conventions which we have acceded to, we make it a point to have publicity. A good example is when we became a party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, an Inter-Ministerial Committee, chaired by Ministry of Community Development and Sports, had overseen implementation of our obligations, but also they had various activities - forums, workshops, and so on - with individuals, interest groups, NGOs, to raise awareness about the obligations and policies under the Convention. I take his point that we should do this with every major convention. And in reply, I do not disagree with him. But this is being done, and if it can be improved, I shall welcome suggestions on this matter. I believe I have touched on his main points. Sir, in case we are cut off by the guillotine under Amendment No. (1), I hope that those who did not have satisfaction of replies to the remaining items would feel free to file a question and we will be happy to answer later.”
“And we are party to several of the human rights conventions, like Genocide Convention, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Convention of the Rights of the Child, like Optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children and armed conflicts which was signed during the Millennium Summit last year. We are currently also reviewing the Convention that he referred to, that is, the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to see whether we can sign that and become a party to it. The next point he made was, when we become a party to a treaty, we must enact legislation to implement it, a proposition which I do not disagree. It must follow that when you adhere to a treaty, if the treaty requires that legislation to be enacted, you must enact the legislation because the general principle in international law is that you cannot cite inadequacy of your law as an excuse for failure to fulfill your international obligations. Having said that, let me say that we make it a point to ensure that we do not fail in that international obligation. So if there is an obligation to enact legislation, we will do so. But if there is no obligation to enact, and if it is a discretionary position, then we will examine whether our other body of laws, our legal framework, enables us to comply with the international convention without enacting specific legislation. He referred specifically to the Genocide Convention as an example where we had not really carried out our obligations.”
“Thank you. Sir, Mr Simon Tay made three points. First, whether we can sign international human rights treaties. He noted that we have signed some treaties. I take it he is really arguing that there are other treaties which we should sign and he has asked what is our state of review of this. Secondly, he has made the point that, when we do sign and accede to the conventions, we should also expeditiously enact legislation to implement those treaties. Third, he made the point about publicising the relevant policies under the treaty. Let me take each of these points. On his first point, yes, we do systematically review the various international conventions and treaties, including the human rights treaties, because they are not the only treaties. There are many other treaties. And we have a mechanism involving several Ministries which will review these treaties. When we can accede to the treaty, we do so but only after a very careful examination of the situation. By that, I mean it is not that we do not want to accede to the treaty. But our approach is that, when we adhere to an international treaty, we want to be sure that we will be able to implement the provisions faithfully, or put it the other way, we do not want to be accused, after we have become a state party, that we are in breach of the provisions. Therefore, before we take the decision, we consult all our agencies. Are we able to implement this treaty? And only when we conclude that we will be able to do so, then we proceed.”
“Sir, may I know how much time we have under this amendment?”
“I thank Members for their very supportive comments about Singapore's participation as a member of the Security Council. I take it as a very challenging task for Singapore and this is probably once in a blue moon kind of situation. We will do our best to live up to the expectations of not only Singaporeans but other countries who have voted us in. As to his comments and question on resources, yes, we have sent extra officers from MFA and also personnel from the Ministry of Defence to augment our team in the UN during this two-year period. They are doing an excellent job in working together with MFA headquarters and other agencies.”
“As for Dr Ong Chit Chung's question whether, now that we are in the Security Council, we would increase the participation in the number of PKOs and would our quality of participation change or increase, I would say that the answer to this question will have to be delinked from our membership in the Security Council. This is a point that I have made many times, but I have to say it again. The fact that we are in the Security Council does not mean that suddenly we must participate in a flurry of activities, whether in peace-keeping, whether in giving aid, triple our aid or double our aid, or whether we should set up more diplomatic missions just because we are in the Security Council. 4.15 pm We take a longer term view in our foreign policy. So the answer to the question whether we support peace-keeping operations is, yes. As a responsible member of the Security Council and the UN, it is in our interest to show support for well thought-out peace-keeping operations of the United Nations. Can we participate? The answer is that we have participated in some 10 peace-keeping operations since 1991, and 72 members of our Armed Forces and Police are presently serving in three peace-keeping missions, and DPM Tony Tan mentioned this. Will we participate in more peace-keeping operations? This is something that the Government, particularly, MINDEF and MHA, will certainly consider. It must depend, first, on the nature of the peace-keeping operation and the situation in which it is conceived. Second, obviously, it must also depend on the resources available, both MINDEF and MHA. But beyond that, I am not, at the moment, able to give any commitment as to which new PKOs we will participate.”
“It is the Security Council, under the Charter. The Security Council takes the decision, then the Secretary-General invites countries called Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs) to provide contingents, and the PKO is launched. But the grievance of many TCCs is that after the PKO is launched, there is very little consultation with them, there is very little feedback obtained from them, and sometimes the mandates of the PKOs are changed by the Security Council without consultation with countries who have ground forces in that conflict situation, and sometimes, they say, to the detriment of the safety and well-being of their soldiers. So there has been this disconnect between the Security Council, the Secretariat and the Troop Contributing Countries, and we thought it is good to have a session where all the members of the Security Council, plus the TCCs, can speak. And we had this debate and I think, with some humility, the consensus was that it was a very good idea, it was a good debate, and it was not just a rhetoric, as at the end of the day the Security Council decided to establish a Working Group on Peace-keeping. This working group will look further into the proposals that were raised at the open debate and see how they can be implemented. So I just cite that as one example of how a non-permanent member can play a constructive role. If there are other areas in which Singapore during its term in two years can similarly aid debate and discussion on such matters, we will be happy to do so.”
“This is not only due to their big power status or their veto power but, in addition, their global reach to the control and use of international media and access to information around the world, particularly in conflict situations. Most P5 countries consult each other quite closely and try to forge a common position. And they are able to do this for a number of issues, but in some issues they have differences. The recent air strike against Iraq and the no-fly zones are examples where Russia and China took a strong position against the United States and United Kingdom, and France expressed rather strong reservations. Having said that the P5 exerts a tremendous role in the Security Council, does this mean that elected members in the Council, who are elected only for two years, like Singapore, have no role to play? I do not think so. An elected member can bring to the Council certain perspectives of a small country or a different perspective of a country from a different region. Let me give one example, and that is, when we became President of the Security Council, like all presidencies, we were expected to organise a debate along a theme. We had to think of a theme, suggest it to the other members of the Council, who of course have to agree. And Singapore proposed that the theme for the Security Council debate under our presidency should be on the role of troop contributing countries in peace-keeping operations. This was agreed to by both the P5 and the other elected members or the non-permanent members. We chose that theme because there is a real concern in peace-keeping operations that the Security Council takes a decision to establish peace-keeping operation in any particular conflict situation. Nobody else can take the decision.”
“Sir, I thank Members who have spoken on the Security Council. We were elected to the Security Council by a good margin, 168 out of 173 votes. Actually we have only been on the Security Council for three months, not, as Mr Sin Boon Ann said, more than a year. On the very day we assumed the membership of the Security Council, because of the system of alphabetical rotation, we also became President of the Council for the month of January. As Foreign Minister, I chaired some of the meetings held during the month in New York. What are the lessons? I think that so far, although it is only three months that have passed, it has been both educational, instructive but also humbling - humbling because I think it reminds us that we are a small country. The fact that we are on the Security Council has not changed it, and we will still be a small country after we step down from the Council. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked what is our agenda for this Security Council. Actually, the agenda is set by the turbulent world events that will occur during these two years when we are on the Security Council. This means that our team in New York and our team in headquarters, MFA, have to be well informed, including on many issues which previously might not have been major items in our radar scope but these are major items for many countries and they come up in the Security Council, and positions have to be taken. Still on the lessons learned during this short period of three months, I think it is clear to us that the influence of the permanent members of the Security Council (what they refer to as the P5 countries) weighs heavily on nearly every issue of the Security Council.”
“Our Consulate in Pekanbaru will also provide consular services to a growing number of Singaporeans visiting the Riau provinces.”