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 15 of 66.
“We have extended an invitation to a team of Timorese officials to visit Singapore to discuss how we can dovetail some of our technical assistance to East Timor's requirements. I expect the team will come in due course. 1.15 pm As regards East Timor's independence and thereafter applying for membership, we had informed Mr Gusmao and Mr Jose-Ramos Horta during their visit that while Singapore would be open to the question of East Timor's membership in ASEAN, it was really premature to consider this issue now. Our message to them was that in the next few years the priority should be to achieve independence, reconstruction and nation building. East Timor's reconstruction needs are enormous and will require massive assistance and strong political backing for some time. The UN and the international community will be the people with the resources and experience to best facilitate East Timor's transition to independence. It is important that the international community and the UN remain engaged in East Timor. ASEAN countries themselves do not possess all the necessary capabilities to undertake this task of reconstruction for East Timor. Many ASEAN countries themselves are recovering from the financial crisis. But this is not to say that ASEAN should take a hands-off approach. ASEAN will be involved, as we have been with INTERFET and the UN support group for East Timor, and individual ASEAN countries, I am sure, including Singapore, will continue to support the international effort for East Timor. As for membership of ASEAN, when they eventually apply for membership, I am sure ASEAN will have to give it serious consideration. East Timor, like any other aspiring member, will have to meet certain criteria and we will have to take this one step at a time.”
“2 million for maintaining our contributions to InterFET and the United Nations Assistance Mission to East Timor. InterFET then was replaced by United Nation Assistance Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) and our contributions to UNTAET are 40 civilian police, 8 military observers and staff officers, a level one medical team comprising up to 26 members. The 40-man civilian contingent will be deployed to East Timor on 6th March and I assume they are already there. An SAF officer has also been appointed as a deputy chief of staff for military and civil affairs in UNTAET. If the UN accepts all our contributions, the total contribution to UNTAET is estimated to cost about $9.1 million for one year. As to the kind of technical assistance and training which we can give to East Timor, the leaders, Mr Xanana Gusmao and Jose-Ramos Horta, visited Singapore in January, as part of their regional tour to establish the groundwork for future relations with friendly regional countries, and they were also wanting to gain support for East Timor's construction efforts. They expressed an interest in Singapore's development experiences since independence. At their request, briefings were arranged with EDB, HDB, MPA and PSA. They also visited a HDB new town and met our businessmen. Mr Gusmao thanked us for our contributions to InterFET and UNTAET, and he also requested our help in providing technical assistance to East Timor. They were particularly interested in the area of human resource development such as port and airport management. We have assured him that within the limits of our resources, we would do what we can to help out.”
“I think Mr Chiam must know that this is not a practical proposal, because he himself pointed out that this is a very sensitive issue. I think he knows that it will be open to all sorts of misunderstandings and interpretation, particularly when what he proposed may be seen as impinging on Indonesia's rights of sovereignty. This is especially so when Mr Chiam's proposal envisaged that the Singapore Government will exercise what may amount to sovereign functions like immigration and security control in another territory. At a time when there is so much sensitivity in Indonesia over calls for separatism, autonomy, independence, I think Mr Chiam will agree when I say that it is unlikely that this proposal would be considered, in his words, as a purely "business" or commercial deal. Related to Indonesia, some Members also asked about East Timor. Three questions were posed. One is to ask about the assistance which we have already given; second, about the technical assistance or training which we may give to East Timor; and, thirdly, prospects of East Timor becoming independent and they applying for ASEAN membership. On the assistance we have given to East Timor up to now, as a member of the UN support group for East Timor, we have contributed US$230,000 to the UN Trust Fund for East Timor. The Trust Fund was set up to fund UN activities in East Timor. Then, as Members will know, there was the International Force for East Timor (InterFET) and our contribution comprised a medical detachment, military observers, logistics support and two landing ship tanks. Altogether, a total of 250 personnel were involved. The cost of maintaining our contributions in East Timor was not small. We incurred some $22.”
“The demonstrations which occurred recently caused losses for companies operating there as work had to be stopped. It also affected tourist arrivals and, consequently, the livelihood of the people was also affected. Therefore, if such disturbances are unchecked, it would affect investors in the Bintan Industrial Estate and, in turn, dampen foreign investors' confidence in Indonesia. And it will affect our role to act as a catalyst to enhance investor confidence. Sir, we have conveyed to the Indonesian authorities at all levels the importance for Indonesia to resolve this matter. But let me add that the disturbances in Bintan should be seen in the context of other incidents of social unrest in various other parts of Indonesia. President Wahid himself has said that the outbreaks of unrest in Indonesia were the product of a conspiracy against his government. The Indonesian authorities have indicated that the disruptive elements from other parts of Indonesia had been involved in Bintan. They recognise the nature and potential impact of the problem, and they have taken swift action to end the disturbances. Since then, the situation in Bintan has been stabilised, and it is our hope that investor confidence will not be affected by the demonstrations. Such incidents should not deter Singapore from pursuing bilateral cooperation projects with the Indonesian government in the Riaus. Finally, Mr Chiam asked whether the Government could consider leasing from the Indonesian government one of the Riau islands to develop it into an economic area with Singapore having full control on, such as security, immigration and allowing entry by Indonesian nationals and so on.”
“Singapore and Indonesia now enjoy warm and friendly ties. The foundations of our relationship are strong and have withstood many storms. We have cooperated for mutual benefit for many years, and Singapore is one of Indonesia's largest foreign investors and our bilateral trade remains strong, notwithstanding the economic crisis. We have a vested interest in Indonesia's stability, growth and prosperity. Furthermore, Indonesia is strategically important for both Singapore, for the region and for ASEAN. It is therefore in everyone's interest to see a prosperous and stable Indonesia. Even during the difficult times, Singapore did not lose confidence in Indonesia. Members will recall the West Natuna Gas project and the Pertamina-Singapore Power agreement reflected Singapore's faith and long-term confidence in Indonesia. I would add that President Wahid's decision to make Singapore his first stop in his ASEAN tour also underscores the importance he places on relations with Singapore. And the return visit by Prime Minister in January continued the process of further strengthening bilateral relations. As regards the questions by Mr Sin Boon Ann and Mr Hawazi Daipi about the recent troubles in Bintan and whether it has affected Singapore's investments there, this matter has been addressed by the Minister for Trade and Industry. But let me say that the demonstrations in Bintan were over the issue of land compensation. It was unfortunate that the issue resurfaced. When development works by the Indonesia-Singapore joint venture company on the Bintan Industrial Estate began more than five years ago, compensation for the land had been fully settled and the land was free of encumbrance.”
“Notwithstanding its legitimacy, I would say that it has a difficult job in dealing with post-Soeharto changes. With this new leadership, other power centres have also emerged. They are seeking a greater say in government as well as acting as a check and balance. The role of the armed forces is also being reshaped. President Wahid has begun a process of political consolidation, national reconciliation and restoring international confidence. This is important for the return of economic stability and foreign investment. President Wahid also sought to deal with the regional pressures for greater autonomy and, in some cases, even calls for independence. But he has received the endorsement of the international community on Indonesia's unity. President Wahid continues to face considerable challenges. Singapore supports the Indonesian government, and wishes President Wahid well in his efforts to deal with the political, economic and social changes. As regards our relations with Indonesia, I said in last year's Committee of Supply debate that relations then, one year ago, were going through a difficult period. At that time, various Indonesian leaders and officials had made all sorts of allegations and negative comments against Singapore. Members will recall that, subsequently, later in the year, in November, responding to a question on bilateral ties, I said that Indonesia was one of our closest neighbours and a major trading partner, and we would like to see a prosperous and stable Indonesia. That is our position. We are ready to work with Indonesia to assist in its economic recovery. We are a small country and our contribution can only be modest. But we can play a catalytic role to help restore investor confidence through practical measures.”
“Indeed, during the Hari Raya party which the Johor Mentri Besar hosted for the Prime Minister on 30th January, the Mentri Besar, Dato Abdul Ghani, showed Prime Minister some models and pictures of a possible new bridge over the Causeway, but there was no discussion of the issue. The Prime Minister made it clear to the Johor Mentri Besar that it should be regarded as a non-briefing. In other words, it was not an official briefing. As I have said before, Singapore has, to date, not received any official proposal from Malaysia. If and when an official proposal is received, I think there are obviously some key questions which will have to be considered. First and foremost, what is the justification for wanting to replace the Causeway with a bridge? If there is a proposal, we need to consider carefully whether it is feasible. And to consider and conclude whether it is feasible, one would have to make a careful cost benefit analysis. If the study shows that the proposal is not feasible, then we will not be able to support it. Anyway, as I said, no proposal has been put to the Government and therefore, at the moment, there is nothing to study. Members then turned to the situation in Indonesia. They asked me about the state of our relations with Indonesia and also certain specific questions. If I may make some broad observations about the situation in Indonesia, I would say that Indonesia is actually in transition. There have been political, economic and social changes there, and there have also been greater demands for regional autonomy, as well as regions requesting a greater share of local resources. The election of Abdurrahman Wahid as President and Megawati Soekarnoputri as Vice President represents a legitimate leadership.”
“Let me say that when issues arise, we do, in fact, take considerable measures to put our views across, not only here, but also in Malaysia. And where there are reports in the Malaysian media which are erroneous or false, we rebut them. We also publish our speeches, press releases and rebuttals on our MFA website as well as in the website of our Mission in Kuala Lumpur. Therefore, I wish to assure Members that MFA and our Missions abroad have been proactive in putting Singapore's views across when necessary. This has even been noted by the Malaysian media. For example, on the CLOB issue, the New Straits Times reported on 29th February this year, and I quote: "One of the lessons of the CLOB affair is perhaps the value of effective public relations. The Singaporeans had their whole Government involved, including their overseas missions, telling their side of the CLOB story. In Kuala Lumpur, for example, the Singapore High Commission was sending copies of CLOB-related documents to the media. The same intensity was absent from the Malaysian side." So I think this speaks for itself. Mr Charles Chong asked about the latest developments, if any, on the Singapore-Johor bridge which Malaysia was reported to have proposed to construct to replace the Causeway. The answer to that is that we have not received any official proposal from the Malaysian Government. As this is an important issue involving two sovereign countries, naturally, we can only consider this matter when a formal proposal is received from the Malaysian Government and not through any other party. 1.00 pm I think Mr Charles Chong also referred to newspaper reports in Malaysia to the effect that Malaysians have briefed Prime Minister Goh during his recent visit to Johor.”
“As to his specific suggestion that more finances and resources be made available to civic bodies, if there are specific and worthwhile projects and a request made to MFA, we will of course be prepared to consider them on a case-by-case basis. Of course, Members have to bear in mind that many civic organisations are autonomous organisations and might want to retain their autonomy. Mr Charles Chong, Mr Hawazi Daipi and a few other Members spoke about the letter by Mr Malik Tahir which was published recently in our local press. They asked whether Mr Malik Tahir's views typify the general feelings of Malay Malaysians. I of course cannot speculate if his perspective respresents the views of the majority of Malay Malaysians. But let me say that we should make a distinction between the views expressed by such individuals and private parties on the one hand, and the official views of a Government. Sir, as I mentioned before in this House on several occasions, after separation, Singapore and Malaysia have, in fact, evolved and developed into two distinct societies. It would not be possible for Singapore to give up its system which is based on meritocracy and multi-racialism. But our approach would be, notwithstanding the differences between our two systems, both countries stand to benefit greatly from bilateral cooperation. Such cooperation must be on the basis of sovereign equality and mutual benefits. It cannot be on the basis of unequal or differential relationship prescribed by Mr Tahir. Connected with this matter, Mr Sin Boon Ann asked whether we are doing enough to put our position across to the Malaysians so that our views, stand and positions can be disseminated better or more effectively in Malaysia.”
“But there must be political will from the other side to respond to Singapore's efforts. If there is any perceived lack of progress on economic cooperation, let me say that it is not due to any lack of effort on our part. Members of the House will recall that Prime Minister Goh had proposed a framework of wider cooperation with Malaysia in line with the 'prosper-thy-neighbour' philosophy which Dr Mahathir has espoused. Under this framework for wider cooperation, Prime Minister Goh had proposed concrete cooperation projects such as the development of water resources in Malaysia for sale to Singapore and the joint development of Malayan Railway land in Singapore. Members may also be aware that Prime Minister Goh spent a lot of time and effort and, in fact, he met with Dr Mahathir eight times in the past two years. More recently, Prime Minister had indicated that he is prepared to meet Dr Mahathir. We will continue to press on and persevere with our efforts to promote bilateral cooperation. Mr Zulkifli Baharudin's suggestion was for more resources to be made available to the civil societies, and in particular, the Singapore International Foundation and Singapore Institute of International Affairs for the promotion of people-to-people cooperation between Singapore and Malaysia. I would agree that the fostering of good relations is not the sole prerogative of governments. The private sector, civic organisations, cultural organisations, sporting organisations, to name a few, all play a role in promoting good relations between our neighbours.”
“" Some Members also referred to Pedra Branca, but I wish to point out to the Members and they will recall that I informed this House last year in January that officials from Malaysia and Singapore did reach an agreement in 1998 on the text of a special agreement to refer Malaysia's claim to Pedra Branca to the International Court of Justice. Hence, this matter is no longer a pressing issue which explains why it was not included in the package of outstanding issues for bilateral negotiations. Mr Chiam See Tong had reiterated his suggestion for an economic union between Singapore and Malaysia. I would refer to what Prime Minister Goh said in reply in this House on 5th June 1997, and I quote: "He (Mr Chiam) got his economic history of our Malaysia days wrong, and he has ignored important non-economic factors, but the economic logic of his proposal is correct. However, cooperation takes two willing parties. I do not think this is the right time to talk about an economic union when bilateral relations are strained and we are still having difficulties implementing specific items of cooperation." And he said: "Singapore and Malaysia share a symbiotic relationship. I fully subscribe to Dr Mahathir's philosophy of 'prosper-thy-neighbour'. It is an important way to strengthen our two countries' symbiotic relationship and help each other to become developed." That was what Prime Minister said. What Mr Chiam was saying yesterday is whether an economic union of the Suzhou type of project or other economic projects, there are many opportunities for the two sides to undertake to strengthen economic cooperation. I agree. I would say that there are endless opportunities for both countries to cooperate for mutual benefit.”
“However, it would seem that the immediate priority of the Malaysians is on the UMNO General Assembly elections in May. As such, it remains to be seen whether there will be significant movement on the discussions of the bilateral package before that date. But it is clearly in the best interest of both countries to resolve the issues as soon as possible. I will not touch on the CLOB issue where the Singapore Exchange and the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange have reached a comprehensive and legally binding solution, because the Deputy Prime Minister had dealt with this in this House comprehensively yesterday. On the railway land, which is also part of the package deal, all I need to do is to reiterate what I said in this House before. The fact that there is a package discussion going on and that it has taken some time to resolve this matter does not, in any way, affect the legal position of these agreements and undertakings under the law. Some of these issues involve questions of principles and questions of law. And these positions of principles, whether it is sovereignty or on legal interpretations of existing agreements, such as the railway land, have to be maintained by Singapore. For example, under the Points of Agreement, Members will recall that there are clear legal undertakings and responsibilities and a time schedule which has to be adhered to. There are certain obligations to be performed and undertaken under the agreements and that continues to be our position. As I pointed out in Parliament on 5th June 1997, the POA provides for a "maximum period for the railway station to be moved from Keppel, that is, within five years from the time the MRT reaches Woodlands New Town, which it did on 10th February 1996.”
“But Singapore's relations will be marked by both competition and cooperation to advance our respective national interests. Singapore's position remains unchanged, that is, we are committed to forging a mutually beneficial long-term relationship with Malaysia based on mutual respect, trust, reciprocity and mutual benefit. We believe in the principle of prosper-thy-neighbour and we would continue to take a constructive approach towards realising the full potential in our bilateral relationship. Members also asked for an update on the package negotiations. As I said, the senior officials met in March, April and May last year on the package of outstanding bilateral issues. Singapore tried to be helpful and took the approach of offering "maximum benefits for both sides" by trying to accommodate new Malaysian requests on issues such as the POA and the CPF withdrawal by West Malaysians. However, Malaysia has not given any indication yet that it is prepared to accommodate Singapore's request on the various issues, especially the supply of raw water to Singapore after the expiry of our water agreements. I have informed this House previously that it is Malaysia's turn to host the next round of talks. The Malaysians have on several occasions indicated that they are aware that the ball is in their court. But they have not yet responded with specific dates. We want to resolve these issues as soon as possible. When Malaysian Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid visited Singapore last year, we agreed that officials from both sides should try to narrow the gaps on the issues, so as to arrive at a win-win package deal. That continues to be our expectation and our approach.”
“Sir, yesterday on Foreign Affairs, many Members raised issues on a wide variety of subjects, our relations with Malaysia, Indonesia, the position in ASEAN, East Timor, United Nations, technical assistance, amongst others. My colleague, Mr Zainul Abidin has touched on Singapore-Philippines relations, and this morning, we will address the other issues which were raised. 12.45 pm First of all, Malaysia-Singapore relations, a matter which several MPs touched on. They asked me about the state of relations as well as some specific aspects, such as updating on the package negotiations. As far as the overall relations are concerned, I last touched on this at our sitting on 17th January this year when I updated the House on the status of the package negotiations on outstanding bilateral issues. Sir, I would describe our relations with Malaysia to be in a "holding pattern". Following three rapid rounds of discussions on outstanding issues in March, April and May last year, the momentum of negotiations except on CLOB has grounded to a halt. We all know that for the better part of last year, Dr Mahathir and his Government had been preoccupied with domestic issues such as the general elections in November and there has not been a focus on relations with Singapore. Now that the elections are over, it is our hope of course that efforts can be resumed to renew and enhance the cooperation between our two countries. But having said that, let me emphasise that Malaysia and Singapore are indeed bound by a multiplicity of different ties. Any such close relationship inevitably must go through different phases. I think it is natural that there will be ups and downs during our relations.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2000/2001, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“But taking matters as of now, I think the consensus and expectation of the United States' presence will continue in the region and most countries in the region clearly consider the United States' presence in the past has been a critical factor for stability and security in the region, and it will continue to be so.”
“The question is whether the American public and the Congress have the same interest and the same view. So there is a real challenge, I think, for the US policymakers to build a domestic consensus to support US' strategic interests in Asia. If you ask me about the future of United States' military presence in the region which we and many other countries feel is critical for the maintenance of stability in the region, it is difficult to gaze into the crystal ball. I think they will continue to be here for some time. What are the kinds of factors that might have impact on this? Looking at long term, I guess we can point to three factors. One would be the domestic mood in the United States. I do not think that there will be a push for isolationism. But if there is a mood for retrenchment or cut-back, then that could affect the extent to which United States' military troops can be abroad in various parts of the world. The second factor could be, if tensions are eased on the Korean peninsula in a significant way, remote though that may seem to be at the moment, then this could have an impact on the United States' presence in Japan, and that in turn can affect the United States' involvement in the region. Thirdly, of course, is the US-Japan Alliance which is critical. The alliance, as I have said, is a strong one, but over time, some have wondered whether development in both US and Japan could lead to a questioning of this alliance. Would a new generation of leaders in Japan look at things in a different way? These are very long-term considerations.”
“The Williamsburg Conference discussed many things, including the continued engagement, presence and role of the United States in Asia. I was asked for my views on this matter. DPM gave an important keynote address exhorting the United States that they should continue to play a key role in the region. Let me just sum up the gist of the views we and I expressed. First, in my discussions with other Ministers in the region as well as analysts, I think there is a clear expectation and consensus that the United States will continue to remain engaged in the region. I do not think anyone seriously doubts that. The question really is the nature of the United States' future role in Asia, whether it will be based on consultation, working together with the countries in the region and partnership, or as some doubt from time to time, whether it will be unilateral imposition of views. If it is going to be on a partnership, working together with the countries, then the question is: what is going to be the basis and foundation of that partnership? During the Cold War when the United States was engaged in the region, there was a clear basis for that partnership. There were clearly shared strategic interests due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union. But post-Cold War, it is very clear as to what the other shared interests are. Singapore's view and the views of many other countries in the region are that there are fundamental interests for the United States to continue to be involved here, both economic interests as well as leadership and globalisation, as well as political and security issues. I believe that the United States and the Clinton administration understand the importance of their engagement in Asia.”
“As to Dr Ong Chit Chung's question on the role of Singapore in this regard, I would say, first, that for Singapore, a small country, to be able to develop and progress in the future, as we have done in the past, a benign, favourable, stable external environment in the region is critical. Therefore, we have an interest in ensuring the engagement of all the key players in as many forums as possible. Thus, Singapore's role should continue to be helpful in ASEAN plus three forums as well as in ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) to try to engage these critical players (United States, Japan and Korea) as well as others like Russia, Australia, New Zealand which are dialogue partners, to sit together at the table and discuss common security issues. I notice that there is a cut further down on the ASEAN Regional Forum, and we can discuss further on this. Equally important is the ability of Singapore to be alert to changing trends, shifting currents, new alignments, so that we will not be caught by surprise - a point made by Dr Ong Chit Chung himself. This is absolutely important. International events, alliances and trends are never static. They keep changing. Singapore must be alert. We must note changing trends, be able to adjust way ahead of time. If we can do that, then I think we will be more prepared for new situations. And as I have described, the strategic situation this year is quite different from what I described in last year's Committee of Supply.”
“The Korean Peninsula also is a potential flash point and remains unpredictable. Any tension can quickly escalate and can affect the rest of Asia, as was evident by the naval skirmishes in the Yellow Sea last year between North Korea and Japan, and between North Korea and South Korea. On the other hand, efforts to improve the situation have continued. Most notably, US-North Korea dialogues which started in September 1999 have been yielding some positive results, such as the de facto freeze in North Korea's missile testing programme and the plans for North Korean Vice-Foreign Minister to make the first high level visit from North Korea to the United States. South Korea on its part remains committed to President Kim's 1998 Sunshine policy. Japan is also looking to normalise relations with North Korea. Another flash point, of course, is the cross-strait tensions. This is another area of uncertainty. Beijing has, in the recently released White Paper on Taiwan, formally made it known that it will resort to the use of force if Taipei delays negotiations on reunification. The situation is likely to be aggravated by election politics in the US. However, since the release of the White Paper, Beijing, Taipei and Washington appear to have exercised restraint and not escalated tensions further. The role and approach taken by the United States towards both Beijing and Taipei will continue to be crucial. If I were to sum up the strategic situation, I think we can say that there are signs that Asia is recovering from the financial crisis. The triangular relationship among US and China remains relatively stable but there continues to be several potential flash points which we need to watch and manage carefully.”
“After the Cold War, the role remains important. A stable strategic environment in Asia is a pre-requisite for a prosperous Asia but which is buttressed by open markets and competition. 5.30 pm Having given this backdrop of the strategic situation, let me also say that there are potential flash points which we need to manage very carefully. I have mentioned this previously, but to update Members, first, there is the potential flash point of the South China Sea. The South China Sea remains a potential flash point because there are so many claimant states of various islands, atolls and reefs, and we saw during the past year some incidents involving some of the claimant states, not only between Philippines and China, but also between ASEAN claimant states, namely, the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia. I do not think there is any immediate danger of outbreak of hostilities. But there is always a concern that accidents can happen, and it is important therefore that claimant states continue to act with restraint to settle their differences peacefully without resort to use of force and, more importantly, from the viewpoint of non-claimant states like us, to respect international laws concerning navigational routes and freedom of passage. The ASEAN Regional Forum, I might add, is trying to work out a code of conduct for the South China Sea. Another flash point is South Asia. Relations between India and Pakistan took a downward turn in the past year over the Kargil conflict in May 1999, Pakistan's Chief Executive Musharraf's assumption of power in November 1999 and the hijack of the Indian Airline's plane in December. Since both countries have nuclear weapons, events in the region clearly could have reverberations for the rest of Asia, if not the world, at large.”
“Over the longer term, Japan can play a greater role in the region, within the context of a strong US-Japan security alliance. On the third side of the triangle, the Japan-China relations, they are also an important part. There are signs that they are trying to move their relations forward. They made significant progress during Prime Minister Obuchi's visit to China in 1999. Both countries wish to set their relations on the path of joint cooperation which is good for the region. I thought we should also mention an interesting development that there are signs of warming ties among the Northeast Asian powers - China, Japan and the Republic of Korea. The leaders of these three countries, in fact, had a historic meeting at the fringes of the ASEAN+3 Summit in Manila in November last year, and this was followed up by other meetings. For example, their Environment Ministers met twice in Seoul and Beijing to discuss cooperation in environmental protection. I think this is a positive development, if the drawing together of the Northeast Asian powers results in rapprochement, the reduction of tensions in Asia, and the reinforcement of the US-China-Japan triangular relationship. The strengthening of this triangular relationship between the United States, China and Japan will help to ensure a peaceful and stable balance of power in the region. The US' role is the key to the regional balance. As you know, Singapore has continued to reiterate the importance of a continued US presence in the region. It is the pre-eminent power in the region, and in the world, and only it can ensure that the triangular relationship remains stable. The US, in our view, has historically played an important role in Asia. It was so in the years after World War II.”
“And we must remember that this is a year of political transitions - with the Presidential elections in Taiwan as well as in the United States and, therefore, it is important for all parties - China, Taiwan and the United States - to make even greater effort to keep temperatures low, and to keep relations on an even keel. We therefore hope that all parties will avoid words and deeds that could potentially lead to an explosive outcome which will not be in the interest of all of us, not in Taiwan's interest, not in China's interest, not in America's interest or the region's interest. We believe that the Clinton Administration is aware of the importance of granting PNTR to China. It is making tremendous efforts to get Congressional approval for PNTR for China. We hope that the Administration will succeed in persuading Congress because the conclusion of the WTO agreement with China was a very important milestone. China's decision to join WTO is significant. It represents a political and strategic decision to integrate itself into the globalised world economy. It also demonstrated a high-level commitment to continue necessary but painful domestic reforms. By concluding the agreement, the US has shown that it understands the importance of integrating China into the world economy, and the benefits to US business. The next aspect of the triangle of course is the US-Japan relationship which, I would say, remains strong. The US-Japan alliance still serves the interests of both parties. However, its future orientation will be affected by the domestic mood in Japan as well as regional geopolitical environment. We believe that Japan has a key role to play in the region because of its economic strength. Japan was active in helping countries in Asia during the financial crisis.”
“Sir, it might be useful for me to respond to his question on the strategic situation before Members speak on specific country-related topics. As to his request for my reading on the strategic situation, I would like to start off by saying that the backdrop for our assessment of the strategic situation is the state of the triangular relationship between United States, China and Japan. As I have said in this House before, this relationship is critical for the external environment in South East Asia. Fortunately, this relationship is stable for now, but there are stresses and strains which could pose a challenge to security and stability in the Asia-Pacific and it may be useful for me to briefly touch on the various aspects of this triangular relationship. If we take United States and China relations, which is the key aspect of the triangle, I would say that last year, as a result of the rough patch which US-China relationship went through, this was a worrisome aspect, particularly as a result of the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade as well as the failure to conclude the United States-China WTO agreement when Premier Zhu Rongji visited the United States in May of 1999. However, with the conclusion of the US-China negotiations on the WTO more recently, I think we can say the relations are generally back on track but there are two issues which potentially can seriously affect the US-China relationship. First, the Taiwan issue and, second, the granting of Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for China by the United States. The Taiwan issue is the most sensitive issue which could derail US-China relations. The stakes are high.”
“I have two minutes to deal with Prof. Chin's points. First, I agree completely with him on the need for the legal profession to upgrade themselves to stay abreast of new changes and techniques in law. In fact, the President of the Law Society, I believe, in the Opening of the Legal Year address, said that there should be mandatory legal education and that the Law Society will proceed robustly in pursuing this. It is a point which I would support and we would be happy to work with him to ensure that that becomes a feature of our legal profession. I cannot also disagree with his idea that our legal education is such that potential graduates, before they graduate as law students, should be exposed to the real world aspect of their practice of law. How do we do this? I think the Ministry of Law and the Attorney-General's Chambers should discuss with the Law Faculty. One aspect is, of course, attachment to various law firms and institutions. Some countries go beyond this and allow the law students to engage in clinical law practice under the supervision of a practitioner. To do that is a little complicated because they have to make sure that it does not run foul of the Legal Profession Act and it raises questions of professional liability and responsibility. Will the student, before he graduates, be actually signing documents and giving advice which he acted on, or will it be the responsibility of the lawyer under whom he works and under whom he supervises? These are some technical questions which have some far-reaching implications. I believe I have touched most of the points raised by colleagues. I will now ask my colleague, Prof. Ho, to deal with the remaining issues.”
“It goes without saying. But I would say this has to be left to the respective Ministries which are most knowledgeable about the policies which they are enunciating or promulgating through legislation in this House. Most Ministries are aware of the need to do so. If Dr Teo Ho Pin feels that the publicity or public education from any particular Ministry on any particular legislation has been inadequate he could take up the cudgels with the respective Minister. But, as a general principle, I support what he says. It is part of the process of preparing the public and explaining the rationale of legislation. His second point was whether we can use IT to disseminate legislation. Indeed, we have been doing this. The Attorney-General's Chambers has informed me that the LawNet Management Committee has agreed to allow free access by members of the public to the LawNet statutes database from terminals located in the National Library and its branches and it is working on the details with the National Library Board. The LawNet statutes database will also be made available for free to members of the public at the information kiosks in the Supreme Court when these are upgraded to be Web kiosks in a few months' time. In addition, the Member should know that the Subordinate Courts together with the Law Society and the Ministry of Law are working on a website on the provision of legal information to the layman. This website will act as a portal from which a member of the public can be directed to the different websites containing legal information about Singapore, such as the Law Awareness page or the Law Society's website and the information leaflets page of the Subordinate Courts as well as the information page on the websites of various departments of the law.”
“In fact, as far as I could find out from the Legal Aid Bureau, they can recall only about two or so instances when an aided person has been asked to pay cost under this provision. She mentioned contingency fee. I am not sure whether she was seriously proposing that the Government consider contingency fee like the United States. That will be a fundamental change where it will change the nature of client-solicitor relationship. Often it has been criticised that a lawyer may become personally and emotionally involved in a case where his fees are dependent on whether he succeeds or not. Mr Ravindran asked about the Criminal Legal Aid System. I think I do not have to repeat the reasons given when I amended the Legal Aid and Advice Act. I then spelt out the reasons as to why Government will confine itself to the provision of civil legal aid. But I assured the House, and I have assured the Law Society, that my Ministry will work closely with them to support their Criminal Legal Aid System. In fact, if you ask the President of the Law Society he will confirm that the Ministry and myself have worked with them to raise funds to meet their requirements for the Criminal Legal Aid System, including a grant from the Academy of Law. I myself have given them ideas and fund-raising projects were organised where I was involved, and I believe that their financial situation has been met, and I will continue to support their activity in that regard. Dr Teo Ho Pin raised the question of public education for legislation. Basically, he asked two questions: One is making legislation and policies of the legislation known to the public. His point is where legislation breaks new grounds, important policies, people should be made aware of them. I think we cannot dispute that.”
“There was a dip in 1998 and 1999 when this figure dipped to about 65%, but we think that was because of the sudden large number of applicants as a result of the hardship during the slowdown in the economic growth. Questions were asked by Dr Lily Neo about discretion to refuse legal aid. Let me say first that this is not an unfettered discretion because under the Act the Director can refuse only if it is unreasonable to grant aid. In practice, the Bureau will take instructions from every applicant who qualifies to determine if there are merits for granting legal aid. Decisions are not arbitrary and they are based on careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances. Obviously, even if a person qualifies, the Board would have to consider the merits of the case, for example, whether the costs involved in pursuing the case would be much more than the amount claimed for. If the amount claimed for is $200, but the whole process will cost much more, that will be one of the considerations that we take into account. She also asked about the seemingly unfair punitive provision in ordering costs against aided persons. Here again, there may be a misunderstanding. This is not a provision applied often and frequently across the board. This is to take care of a very narrow situation where it may be found out later that the person who obtained legal advice or legal aid actually had acted improperly or even dishonestly. He might have even told lies. In that kind of situation, it is not equitable that a person be seen to have got off scot-free. So this is the narrow situation where costs may be awarded against that person.”
“Nevertheless, I take his point into account and we will ask the parent Ministries to have a look at it. However, I am not sure I agree with him that where the legislation is silent, a member of a statutory board could profess ignorance and profit from a conflict of interest. This is because even if there is no specific provision in the Act, I believe the general law places fiduciary duty on members of statutory boards so that if they were to abuse their fiduciary position and make secret profits, they will be obliged under the law to cough out those profits. 2.30 pm Dr Lily Neo and Mr Ravindran talk about the Legal Aid and Advice Act and the stringency of the means test. The means test was last reviewed in 1995 and the threshold was increased. We not only increased the income ceiling but we also allowed more deductions. I am prepared to look at it again. But let me say that the Members ought not to misunderstand the provisions in the Act. The requirement for disposable income of less than $7,000 does not mean that legal aid will never be provided to applicants who earn more than $583 a month because in computing the disposable income, various deductions are allowed, including deductions for CPF, rental, personal deductions and deductions for dependants. Also, in practice, the income of a spouse is disregarded in certain cases, such as where the parties are separated and if it is reasonable to do so to relieve hardship. In fact, under the means test, a sole breadwinner with two children who is earning $1,200 a month ought not to have problems in qualifying for legal aid. In fact, on the average, about 80% who applied for legal aid in 1996 and 1997 qualified for it.”
“Let me say that we have referred precisely these issues to the Law Reform Committee of the Singapore Academy of Law. They have made several recommendations which we are studying with a view to amending the Act. Although the changes have not been finalised, let me say that, broadly, the recommendations do contemplate allowing a trustee to invest in any form of investment, provided he exercises prudence in relation to the investments, probable income, the capital safety and the suitability for the trust, which is commonly known as a prudent man rule. I think she referred to this. They do not recommend a complete abolition of the list of investments currently found in the First Schedule. It is proposed that this list should be retained to serve as a guidance to the trustees, particularly non-professional trustees of small and family trusts who could benefit from such guidance. As for the need for diversification of investments and for the adoption of an investment strategy, the recommendation is that this be considered as part and parcel of the prudent man rule. I will take her suggestions into account when we look at these recommendations with a view to amending the Act. Mr Ravindran referred to the fact that some legislation have requirements for declarations of interest and some legislation do not. We can look into this. His point really is that there should be avoidance of conflict of interest, with which we cannot disagree. Why is it that some legislation do not contain these provisions? I am not sure. I guess that those legislation generally are Acts of a non-operational statutory board such as institutions of higher learning where they might have thought that the danger of acting in conflict of interest is not that real.”
“It will ensure a sound infrastructure for the development of intellectual property and the administration of protection of intellectual property rights. So we have done a fair bit, but with the establishment of the Law Reform Coordinating Committee, I expect that there will be a more coordinated and focused approach to ensuring that these needs and challenges posed by fast-changing local as well as international environment will be met. He asked about conveyancing fees and whether it is timely to review. Members will recall that we last reviewed the conveyancing scale fees in 1995, when the Committee chaired by Mr Justice Chao Hick Tin made his recommendations. At that time, the Committee had considered whether to abolish scale fees altogether, but had concluded that it was in the public interest to retain a mandatory fixed scale fees but we had changes made to the scale fees. I said that we would review the matter in about 4-5 years' time. My Ministry has not made a decision yet on the precise changes to be made, but the Attorney-General and I agreed that it is timely to review this matter now, and we shall in due course set up a committee to look into this. As to which direction the review will take, I would prefer to let the committee look into this and make its recommendation. But Mr Chng Hee Kok knows that I have said several times, and so has the Attorney-General, that the legal profession should prepare themselves for the eventuality that sooner or later the scale fees will have to be abolished. Mrs Lim Hwee Hua talked about the Trustees Act and the changes made in England and her criticisms on what she thought were outmoded approaches of the Trustees Act and whether we would review it.”
“For example, the legislation amending the Legal Profession Act had very much to do with fundamental changes to our legal system and legal framework so that it would be able to keep in tune with the challenges ahead of us, particularly the provisions on incorporation of companies as well as allowing foreign law firms to form joint ventures and formal alliances with local firms. These are very important steps taken recently. He would also note that we have made important amendments to our bankruptcy legislation, precisely to support the Technopreneurship 21 initiative. These amendments have increased the threshold for bankruptcy, raised the debt level for discharge by the Official Assignee and made it easier for bankrupts to do business and expedited payments to creditors. I think this reform to the bankruptcy legislation is a very good example. He referred to the challenges posed by cyberspace crimes and challenges which they pose for copyrights and patents. Here again, we have made progress because we amended the Copyright Act to meet these challenges posed by the development of new technology and the increasing popularity of electronic commerce. We improved copyright protection and enforcement of measures for copyright owners in cyberspace, to promote the use of Internet by businesses, and we also provided greater legal certainty for both copyright owners and users of copyright works, not to mention the intermediaries such as network service providers. We had a full debate on this not long ago. We have also restructured the Registry of Trade Marks and Patents into the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS). This is important to maintain Singapore's competitive edge, and IPOS will move away from just a regulatory body.”
“Sir, my colleague, Minister of State Ho Peng Kee, and I will answer the points raised by Members within the time allotted to us. And I hope if any points are cut off by the guillotine, Members will file questions at subsequent sittings. First, Mr Chng Hee Kok asked about our ability to cope with the legal framework in order to keep abreast of competitiveness and changes in the business world. First, as to the procedure, let me say that we have established a Law Reform Coordinating Committee chaired by the Attorney-General, representatives from the Faculty of Law, Academy of Law, Law Society and representatives of various Government agencies. The task of this Law Reform Coordinating Committee is precisely to ensure that our legal system and our laws are up to date, and whatever reforms are needed, they will be undertaken. The Committee itself will not be the agency doing the reforms but it is, in fact, the coordinating agency to ensure that what needs to be done will be done. In addition, the Attorney-General's Chambers has set up a dedicated Law Reform and Revision Division this year. It will fulfil a long-felt need for a full time dedicated law reform outfit in Singapore. The Attorney-General, in fact, will be sending two officers from his Chambers to the Australian Law Reform Commission to pick up some of the procedures and methods which are used in other countries. He asked for examples of how we have kept abreast. The Member would know that we have in fact passed some important legislation.”
“00 including chewing and sucking tobacco 890 - Other $130.00 $150.00 900 - Other $130.00 $150.00”
“Currently, 2,705 households pay quit rent. Ministry of Law is in the process of reviewing the need for these households to continue paying quit rent. APPENDIX TO ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT ANNEX A Existing New Excise Excise HS CODE DESCRIPTION Duty Duty (per kg) (per kg) 24.01 Unmanufactured tobacco;tobacco refuse. 2401.10 - Tobacco, not stemmed/stripped: 100 - Virginia type, flue-cured $ 70.00 900 - - Other $ 70.00 $ 80.50 2401.20 - Tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped: 100 - Virginia type, flue-cured $ 70.00 $ 80.50 900 - Other $ 70.00 $ 80.50 2401.30 100 - Tobacco refuse $ 70.00 $ 80.00 2402 Cigars, cheroots, cigarillos and cigarettes, of tobacco or of tobacco substitutes 2402.10 000 - Cigars, cheroots and $130.00 $150.00 cigarilos, containing tobacco 2402.20 000 - Gigarettes containing $130.00 $150.00 tobacco 2402.90 - Other: $130.00 $150.00 100 - - Cigarettes containing $130.00 $150.00 tobacco substitutes 990 - - Other $130.00 $150.00 2403 Other manufactured tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes; "homogenised" or "reconstituted" tobacco; tobacco extracts and essences. 2403.10 - Smoking tobacco, whether or not containing tobacco substitutes in any proportion: 100 - Packed for retail $130.00 $150.00 - Other: 910 - - For the manufacture of $ 70.00 $ 80.50 cigarettes 990 - - Other $130.00 $150.00 - Other: 2403.91 000 -"Homogenised" or $130.00 $150.00 "reconstituted" tobacco 2403.99 -Other: 100 - Beedies $ 26.00 $ 33.00 200 - Snuff $130.00 $150.00 - Other manufactured tobacco: 810 - Provided that at the time $ 14.00 $ 22.00 of release from Customs control,the Director-General is satisfied that it is not intended to be used for the manufacture of cigarettes by power operated machinery 820 - "Smokeless Tobacco", $ 14.00 $ 22.”
“This does not mean that we view the offence of exploitation of workers by foreign employment agencies to be any less serious, but we have to be selective. I think not all other countries view the problem with the same gravity as Singapore. So they may not list it as an extraditable offence or as an offence in their mutual legal assistance. Of course, these matters are not cast in stone. Situations may vary. More and more countries may face the same problem and it could well be that this could be a candidate for mutual legal assistance at a later date. 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. DEVELOPMENTAL INVESTMENT FUND BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.15 pm”
“Chin's request for an assurance, I do wish to assure him that the powers under this Bill, of course, will be properly used, and that is our intention to do so. Our main objective of this Bill is to facilitate obtaining of evidence and testimony from overseas with the objective of assisting the efficiency of our own law enforcement and criminal investigations and prosecution. In doing so, there is no intention whatsoever of lowering standards or to allow unreliable evidence to be used. Just as we are interested in securing the conviction of a criminal, it is equally important that we avoid wrongful conviction of innocent people. I would also like to thank Mr Thomas for his support of the Bill. He had two questions. First, whether this Bill would enable us to request mutual assistance from other countries in tackling offences on trafficking in women and children. Upon perusing the list of offences namely, the list in the CDSA, I note some of these offences are clearly listed, such as offences relating to prostitution, trafficking in women and girls, importation of women or girls by false pretences, causing and encouraging prostitution, intercourse with indecent assaults. They are covered. His other point is whether the Bill also enables mutual assistance in prosecuting unscrupulous foreign agents with respect to foreign illegal workers. My quick perusal of the list does not show that this specific offence is covered. Why? I think the answer is that our Penal Code and our other legislation have hundreds of offences. Usually, when we devise a list of offences for the purposes of extradition, confiscation orders or mutual assistance, we will have to narrow them down to offences which are very likely to be considered as serious offences in other countries.”
“It is because I foresee that even requests in aid of the prosecution will be made very sparingly, because in mutual legal assistance arrangement, such requests are not routinely made. They are made in very serious cases, because a lot of effort on the part of the law enforcement authorities and quite a lot of resources have to be spent to accommodate the request of a foreign country. So, each request which Singapore makes to a foreign country does impose a strain on the resources of a foreign country and vice versa. Just as we have given the Attorney-General the right to decline to deal with trivial, unsubstantiated or unnecessary requests from foreign countries, I should think that we ourselves would not want to make such a request in a routine manner. Otherwise, we may lose credibility and goodwill internationally, and other countries may not deal with our requests promptly or seriously. Prof. Chin also dealt with power of delegation. It is obvious that there has to be a power of delegation. And if we look at the destination table of the different models from which we have borrowed some of these provisions, the Australian legislation has power of delegation. Let me say, in answer to his concern, that delegation will be made only to officers of sufficient seniority to make appropriate decisions. As to why it is not confined only to senior members of the legal service, as he knows, in our system, we have the legal service, the police, the CID, maybe CPIB and others. Many law enforcement agencies are involved and I think we should give the discretion to the Attorney-General in a particular case to harness the resources of the appropriate department, other than the legal service itself. Finally, in answer to Prof.”
“It is not the intention that evidence received from overseas authorities will be scrutinised any less critically than evidence obtained locally. Let me add that a statement can be used against a witness only if it is inconsistent with the testimony of the witness. If the statement is inconsistent with the testimony of the witness and the intention is not to use the statement against the witness, then the Bill neither authorises nor prohibits its use. He spoke about the ambit of the Attorney-General's discretion to make requests to other countries, and he asked whether this would include accommodating requests by defence counsel in various cases. He is right that the Bill provides that only the Attorney-General can make a request to a foreign country for assistance. Let me say that the primary intention of this Bill is to facilitate criminal investigations and the prosecution of offenders. In fact, this is so for legislation enacted by other countries also. That is the primary intention. Having said that, let me say that there is, of course, nothing in the Bill to prevent the Attorney-General from making a request to obtain evidence in the aid of the defence in a particular case. In answer to Prof. Chin's question, let me say that I am sure the Attorney-General will give due consideration to any request from defence counsel to invoke the Attorney-General's discretion to request assistance from a foreign country. But I do not wish to give the impression that defence counsel should be freely making such requests, or that the Attorney-General will frequently agree to all these requests to approach foreign countries. Why do I say that?”
“I should also clarify that the immunity only applies to offences committed by the person before he begins his journey to Singapore. If he commits a crime when he is in Singapore during that period to give assistance, it is a different story and the immunity will not apply. Prof. Chin also asked a related point, about the point of time when the immunity is deemed withdrawn. He gave examples. He is supposed to leave but he goes shopping and so on. Let me say that all these provisions on mutual assistance will work only if the countries concerned exercise them in good faith and some common sense. Because if we apply these provisions in a very unrealistic and unreasonable manner, then, of course, since these matters depend on reciprocity, we can expect that other countries also not to act in good faith. So, international assistance and cooperation in legal and law enforcement matters is predicated upon countries working in good faith. Otherwise, international cooperation will break down. So I guess if it is one day's shopping, our law enforcement authorities are not going to unreasonably pounce on him for his previous offence. Prof. Chin also asked a point concerning the reliability of evidence received from overseas, and the example he gave about scrutinising chain of evidence, packet of heroin seized in another country and so on. I think it goes without saying that all evidence received under clause 8 will have to be assessed by our court for relevance, admissibility, reliability and weight. All evidence received from overseas, therefore, will have to be subject to the same rules of evidence as evidence obtained locally, a point which Prof. Chin was concerned about.”
“This will ensure that a person who travels overseas and has agreed to travel overseas under clause 26 would not be charged for any pervious offence while he is in a foreign country. That is an important safeguard. Prof. Chin asked about immunity. If you look at clause 11, it is clear that for the whole time that a person is here in Singapore, pursuant to a request under clause 9, he cannot be charged for any offence he had committed before he left the foreign country to come to Singapore and I confirm that that is the intention. Let me give an example so that Members will understand the purport of such a safeguard. A person may have committed an offence in Singapore some time ago and may be living in a foreign country. If we need him to come to Singapore to help with the investigation of another crime, or to give evidence in a trial concerning some other accused, naturally, he will be reluctant to do so, for fear that he would be prosecuted for his previous offence once he comes to Singapore. This may not serve the interest of justice as this witness' evidence could be valuable and another criminal could walk free if we fail to get his assistance. When the Bill becomes law, the witness will be willing to come to Singapore as clause 11 will give him immunity if he comes at the request of the Attorney-General, but the immunity is only temporary. Once a witness leaves Singapore, the immunity ceases to apply and we could prosecute him if he comes back again on his own volition. Of course, if there is an extradition arrangement in place, we can also ask for his extradition at a later time. The key is that during the period, he is here for the purpose of which assistance was sought and he had agreed to come.”
“Sir, I thank Prof. Chin Tet Yung and Mr Thomas Thomas for their support of the Bill. Let me take the questions which they pose. First, I will deal with the questions raised by Prof. Chin Tet Yung. Prof. Chin asked about extradition and whether this could be used as a back door route of extradition. He is right in pointing out that this Bill does not deal with extradition, as I have stressed in my speech. All requests for extradition and assistance leading to extradition would continue to be handled under the provisions of the Extradition Act. This is made clear in clause 5. In fact, let me point out that in respect of requesting the assistance of people to come from foreign countries and foreign countries regarding assistance from Singaporeans to go there to give evidence, the Bill makes it clear that it is dependent on their consent. So, this Bill therefore does not deal with compulsory handing over of witness or person who can give assistance. And it also has not got anything to do with charging a person for any offence in this country or the other country with respect to mutual assistance. Prof. Chin asked if we could compel the attendance of a person as a way of obtaining extradition by the back door. I do not think there is any scope for achieving extradition by the back door. Under clause 26, it makes it clear that the Attorney-General would not arrange for the attendance of a person overseas unless the foreign authority gives adequate undertakings to the Attorney-General. One of these undertakings, and it is spelt out in clause 26(3)(a)(i), is that that person will not be charged for any offence which he may have committed before he leaves Singapore for a foreign country.”
“Clause 9 states that the Attorney-General may make a request to secure a person's attendance if "there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person in a foreign country is capable of giving evidence or assistance relevant to a criminal matter involving a Singapore offence." Does this broad authority extend to helping defence counsel, for example, in procuring alibi witnesses? Or is it the case that the procedures under this Bill would only be used to aid in prosecutions? Finally, Sir, I refer to the wide discretion given to the Attorney-General to delegate his powers under the Bill to any public officer under clause 43. I wonder whether in relation to such serious matters, the discretion should be so wide. Surely, it would have been more appropriate to limit the delegable authority to someone who is in a senior position in the Legal Service. I wish to reiterate that I do support the Bill, and that it marks a significant step in the fight against international crime. I hope, however, that the Minister can assure the Members of this House that such powers, as are conferred by the Bill, would be properly used, and that care will always be taken when the life, liberty or property of an individual, whether foreign or local, is at stake.”
“It is whether the immunities and privileges go too far in certain respects, and not far enough in others. Under clause 11(a), the person whose presence is required shall not "be detained, prosecuted or punished in Singapore for any offence that is alleged to have been committed, or that was committed, before the person's departure from the foreign country.". So a person who has committed a crime in Singapore flees to another country, and then requested to come back to give evidence, say, against his accomplice, would not be prosecuted while he is returning under this provision. Could the Ministry clarify that this is indeed the position? I now refer to clause 11(2) which withdraws the protection under subclause (1) if the person has left Singapore or the person has the opportunity to leave but remained in Singapore for a purpose unrelated to the purpose for which his presence was required. Thus, if after the case, the person were to stay back a day to catch a later flight, and at the same time, do a bit of shopping, it seems that technically, it would be regarded as having had the opportunity to leave, but has remained in Singapore for another purpose, and therefore, the immunities no longer apply. I bring out this somewhat casual example to ask whether in such instances, we intend to stick to the letter of the law, or its spirit. Could we expect other countries to be also flexible in their approach, and not apply such technicalities when it comes to Singapore persons who voluntarily go to the country requesting their presence? Next, I refer to the wide authority of the Attorney-General to request the presence of a person in Singapore from a foreign country.”
“The second issue I have concerns the use of evidence, once obtained from abroad. Clause 8(3) allows evidence from abroad to be admitted, subject to the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. Such evidence may include, according to the clause, things or photos or copies of things. However, unlike statements contained in things, there is no provision on how to authenticate and evaluate this evidence. If a statement is involved, then the Court is under a duty to see whether it is possible to challenge the statement by questioning the maker. It is also to take into account whether legal representation was available to the maker at the time the statement was made. One example of the problem could be in relation to the case of things or objects. It is usually required in Singapore that the person adducing any thing or object should show the "chain of evidence" from the time the object was seized to the time it was produced in Court. Thus, for example, if a packet of heroin was seized, say, in Jakarta, and if that packet were to be used in evidence here in Singapore, there should be a record from the time it was seized to the time it was produced in Court to avoid the danger of fabrication or misuse of evidence. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Attorney-General and other prosecuting authorities would take the utmost care in using evidence obtained from abroad in Singapore courts. It must satisfy the rules of production in Singapore courts, and that this clause does not, without more, justify the admission of evidence without proper authentication. My third issue relates to the immunities and privileges of a person whose presence is requested through the Bill.”
“Crime knows no borders and criminals these days are as much into globalisation as any self-respecting industry. It is the same for those who are engaged in other crimes and who use computers, for example, to facilitate their nefarious affairs, such as money laundering and the like. It is therefore imperative that we have in place legislation that would allow our prosecutors to cooperate with their counterparts in other countries. Indeed, such legislation is not just timely, but overdue. Be that as it may, we observe the rule of law and once this Bill is passed, we will have in place the legislation needed for us to seek assistance from others in a variety of ways - to collect evidence, to look for witnesses, to enforce confiscation orders and so on. Sir, I have several issues that I hope the Minister can clarify in this debate. The first has to do with the effect of this Bill on the process of extradition. According to clause 5, the Bill does not authorise extradition, and any arrest or detention associated with it. At the same time, Part III of the Bill, which the Minister has referred to, deals with requests made by other countries to Singapore for assistance. This may conceivably be used to request the attendance of a person from Singapore and if that person were to go, he may find himself subjected to other charges that neither the Attorney-General nor he was informed about. I should like to ask the Minister to confirm to the House that the safeguards provided in this Bill would not be used as a back door to extradition, and that adequate safeguards are indeed in place to prevent this. Would he also confirm that extradition remains the main process through which alleged criminals are extradited to other countries?”
“Finally, there is a general power to decline a request if the provision of assistance could prejudice a local investigation or criminal proceeding or would prejudice the safety of any person or if it is not in the public interest to provide the assistance. Miscellaneous amendment to CDSA Before I end, I should mention that the Bill also seeks to insert a new section 39A into the CDSA. This will empower Suspicious Transactions Reporting Officers in the Commercial Affairs Department to share information with foreign financial intelligence units. Safeguards have been built into section 39A such that the sharing of information is conditional on there being an arrangement between the financial intelligence units of Singapore and the foreign country. Conclusion Sir, in conclusion, let me say that this Bill will enhance the legal arsenal at the disposal of law enforcement agencies. It will also enable Singapore to play its part in the wider international efforts to combat transnational crimes. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Sir, I rise to support the Bill. In preface to that, I am sure Members of this House will remember that the whole world was waiting with bated breath on the eve of the New Year, 31st December 1999, when we thought that if the millennium bug did not get us, the other viruses will. In the end, happily, it was a non-event, though many, especially those in the computer departments must have thought that there were better ways to spend the millennium eve than to sit in one's office, watching computer screens. Sir, this example shows how we entered this new millennium, this new century, feeling very vulnerable.”
“Safeguards built into the Bill Let me turn to the safeguards which have been built into the Bill. While we are willing to provide assistance to foreign authorities in appropriate circumstances, obviously there must be safeguards in place to prevent abuses of our willingness to assist and to prevent unnecessary intrusion by foreign authorities into the privacy of our businesses and individuals. Many safeguards are therefore built into the Bill. I shall briefly explain the main safeguards. The first safeguard of course is the limited list of offences for which assistance is available. As I mentioned before, this list is tied to the list of offences under the CDSA. Limiting the list of offences for which assistance can be provided ensures that assistance is given only for the offences which are considered to be sufficiently serious in nature. The second safeguard is the requirement for mutual legal assistance treaty for certain forms of assistance, which I have already mentioned, and can be described as coercive in nature. A related safeguard is that a request will be declined if it does not comply with the conditions laid down in the applicable treaty. To ensure that requests are not made unnecessarily, it is provided that the Attorney-General will not honour a request if the thing requested is not of sufficient importance to the investigation of criminal proceedings, or could reasonably be obtained by other means. To avoid information or evidence obtained pursuant to a request from being used subsequently for other purposes, it is provided that a request will be declined if the requesting state fails to give an undertaking that the thing requested will not be used for purposes other than those for which the request was made.”
“Just as we require the existence of a mutual legal assistance treaty before providing some forms of this assistance, the country to which we make a request may similarly impose a condition of rendering assistance upon the existence of prior arrangements or understanding with Singapore concerning mutual legal assistance. Essentially, Sir, what these provisions do is to establish that the Attorney-General has the legal authority to make such requests on behalf of Singapore. Request to Singapore Turning to requests which may be made by foreign countries to Singapore, the forms of assistance which Singapore can request are also the forms of assistance which Singapore can provide under the Bill. As I explained earlier, some of these provisions of giving assistance by Singapore, like those concerning search warrants and production orders, are only enabling provisions. Whether assistance can be invoked in any particular case will depend on whether there is a mutual legal assistance treaty between Singapore and the requesting country. Of the various forms of assistance which Singapore can provide, assistance concerning production orders, search warrants and enforcement of foreign confiscation orders are already provided for in the CDSA. As I mentioned just now, these mutual assistance provisions in the CDSA will be repealed and moved into this Bill. Assistance in the taking of evidence is also not new, as it is now provided for under section 43 of the Extradition Act. Similarly, section 43 will be repealed and moved into the Bill as clause 21. This consolidation will now provide a convenient one-stop source of reference of the provisions for mutual assistance in criminal matters in our law.”
“Request by Singapore As far as requests by Singapore are concerned, under the Bill, Singapore can ask for a number of different forms of assistance from a foreign country. The first form of assistance involves obtaining of evidence - that is, asking a foreign country to take evidence in that country, including obtaining the testimony of witnesses as well as seizing physical evidence, photographs, documents, and transmit them to Singapore for use in legal proceedings. The second form of assistance is in arranging for the voluntary attendance of persons in Singapore as witnesses in legal proceedings or to assist in criminal investigations. Clause 11 gives the assurance that a person who comes to Singapore under this provision will, during the period of his stay in Singapore for the purpose requested, be immune from prosecution or civil suit for anything which he has done before leaving the foreign country to come to Singapore. The third form of assistance is to request a foreign country to enforce a Singapore confiscation order. Fourthly, a request could be made to a foreign country to assist in locating or identifying a person who could be of assistance in criminal investigations or proceedings or who could be affected by such investigations or proceedings. Finally, a request can be made to a foreign country for service of Singapore court documents in that country. However, the existence of these provisions in our law does not mean that any foreign country will be automatically obliged to accede to our requests. Whether the foreign country will accede to our request will depend on the provisions of that country's laws.”