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 16 of 66.
“On the other hand, assistance which involves coercive measures may only be provided to a country which has a mutual legal assistance treaty with Singapore. For these measures, the Bill merely lays down the framework for Singapore to enter into a mutual legal assistance treaty with other countries for the provision of assistance. Therefore, whether assistance can be provided will depend on the existence of a treaty. Just as extradition is not automatic but is conditional on the existence of an extradition treaty, it is also consistent with international practice to condition the use of a State's coercive powers on the existence of a mutual legal assistance treaty, sometimes referred to as MLAT in short. The requirement for a treaty will allow Singapore to set conditions for giving of assistance and provide safeguards against abuses by other countries. Let me point out at this stage that there is one exception to this distinction between coercive and non-coercive measures. This relates to the provision on taking testimony in Singapore courts for use in foreign proceedings (clause 21). This is because this form of assistance is already currently available under section 43 of the Extradition Act, without the requirement for mutual legal assistance treaty and we do not wish to upset a practice which has been in place for many years. Sir, the list of offences for which assistance may be obtained or provided for under the Bill is the same as the list currently applicable under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (or CDSA for short). The Bill provides that the Attorney-General will be the authority for requesting assistance from other countries and receiving requests for assistance from other countries.”
“Part 2 deals with the requests for assistance made by Singapore to foreign countries. Part 3 deals with the requests for assistance to Singapore by foreign countries. Parts 1 and 4 deal with general issues which are common to both requests by Singapore to foreign countries and foreign countries to Singapore. The Bill marks out the extent and forms of assistance which Singapore is prepared to give, the pre-conditions to be met before such assistance is given, and the conditions governing the rendering of such assistance. It also provides the legal framework for Singapore to request and receive assistance from other countries. This Bill does not deal with extradition. All requests for extradition and assistance leading to extradition, will continue to be handled under the provisions of the Extradition Act. Clause 5 of the Bill makes that very clear. The Bill will also not affect the system of informal cooperation currently existing between our law enforcement agencies and other law enforcement agencies as well as international organisations, such as Interpol. Assistance under the Bill may be obtained or provided for criminal investigations, criminal proceedings in court, and seizure or confiscation of proceeds or instrumentalities of crime. The Bill imposes no restrictions on which country Singapore may request assistance from. When it comes to the provision of assistance to foreign countries, the Bill distinguishes between assistance involving coercive measures, such as, for example, search warrants and those not involving coercive measures, for example, service of documents. Assistance which does not involve coercive measures may be provided to any country.”
“With that extension, we widened the scope of the mutual assistance provisions in the Act to cover mutual assistance in the context of serious offences other than drug trafficking. The Bill before us today builds on these previous efforts by consolidating the existing mutual assistance provisions and providing for more forms of assistance currently not available under our laws. It follows closely on the heels of the amendments last year, as part of the Government's progressive move towards building a wider framework for international legal assistance in the fight against crime. There is an increasing international trend towards enacting comprehensive mutual legal assistance legislation. We see this in the laws of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong, to name but a few. In fact, during the Plenary of the Financial Action Task Force last year, Singapore was encouraged to enact a dedicated mutual assistance law. It is in keeping with our role as a member of the Financial Action Task Force to act on this suggestion and to propose this Bill to this House. This Bill not only facilitates the provision of legal assistance by Singapore to foreign authorities, it will also enhance the legal arsenal at the disposal of our law enforcement agencies in fighting transnational crime. For example, our law enforcement agencies have in the past faced problems in getting witnesses from other jurisdictions to come to Singapore to give evidence. This has hampered their investigations in some cases. The Bill before us will allow them to receive such assistance. It will help to facilitate the work of our enforcement agencies. Overview of the Bill Sir, let me now take the House through the main provisions of the Bill. The Bill has four parts.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, globalisation has produced immense benefits and rapid development to countries around the world. However, one side effect is that serious crimes are no longer confined within national boundaries. The reduction of trade restrictions, the increasing ease with which people and goods cross national borders, the global reach of telecommunications and financial systems, all of these present opportunities to criminals to extend their activities beyond national borders. The same forces that make possible today's rapid international trade can be exploited and are exploited by criminals to extend their criminal activities and influences across countries. Without an effective network of international cooperation in the war against transnational crimes, criminal organisations will be able to exploit the differences and dislocations caused by national borders to their advantage and defy the individual efforts of national authorities to deal with them. This Bill before the House today signals Singapore's commitment to be part of the wider international network of cooperation in combating crime on a global scale. This is not the first time that we have enacted legal provisions for international mutual assistance in criminal matters. In 1993, we enacted the Drug Trafficking (Confiscation of Benefits) Act with mechanisms for mutual assistance built in to help in the fight against international drug money-laundering. Last year, Members will recall we extended that legislation scope to cover laundering of the proceeds of other serious crimes and we renamed it the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act.”
“To regulate scriptless public performances, PELU requires a licence application for such performances to be accompanied by a synopsis of the performance. The National Arts Council (NAC) is monitoring the practice of Performance Art and Forum Theatre in Singapore and abroad to assess their impact and development. The NAC has withheld public funding for these art forms since January 1994, arising from a performance by Fifth Passage in which an actor trimmed his pubic hair and another induced himself to vomit into a rubbish bin. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS APPLICATIONS UNDER THE PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENTS ACT 1. Mr Simon S C Tay asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the average time for processing applications under the Public Entertainments Act and the number of applications for permits that have been refused or delayed by more than one month in 1999.”
“I believe the Member is referring to residential properties on 99-year leases from the State. Such properties, as a matter of principle, will revert to the State upon expiry of the lease. This is not to say that extensions of such leases cannot be considered upon their expiry. However, a decision on this cannot be taken in abstract. As most residential leases have more than 70 years left, it is not possible now to give a general decision applicable to all such properties where there are many years, before such leases expire. We will have to consider each case on its merits, depending on the Government's long-term plans for land uses closer to the time of expiry of the leases. In view of the changing needs, our economic and social development, Government must retain its flexibility in land-scarce Singapore to plan for the longer term. Indeed this is one reason why we have 99-year leases. RESTRICTIONS ON ART PERFORMANCES 34. Mr Simon S C Tay asked the Minister for Information and the Arts whether performances of particular art forms, such as Forum Theatre, face additional restrictions or any ban and, if so, what are the reasons. Mr Lee Yock Suan: The Government has not banned any art forms in Singapore. To stage public performances, artists have to apply for a licence from the Public Entertainment Licensing Unit (PELU). Forum Theatre and Performance Art are relatively new art forms that have no prepared script but rely on spontaneity and improvisation with the performers drawing inspiration from audience participation. They pose greater risks to public order and decency. The performances may be exploited to agitate the audience on volatile social issues, or to propagate the beliefs and messages of deviant social or religious groups, or as a means of subversion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose not to go into details in repeating whatever has been said in this House. There is a clear question of what is the legal position. And the legal position is being adhered to by Singapore. If he wants a repetition of the answers given in this House, he can file a Question and I am sure Dr Lee Boon Yang would be happy to answer the question.”
“Let us not forget that these issues on their own can be negotiated and tackled separately and it has gone on for some time prior to the two Prime Ministers' meeting in Hanoi in 1998. It was because the previous approach of treating them separately had not produced results that the two Prime Ministers agreed - Dr Mahathir proposed, and our Prime Minister agreed - that we should try to look at this as a package with officials from both sides. Let me also stress that some of the issues involved questions of principles and law. And these positions of principle, whether it is on sovereignty or on legal interpretations of existing agreements such as on railway land, have to be maintained by Singapore. So the fact that there is a package discussion and it is taking some time does not in any way affect the legal position of these agreements under the law. And if you recall what I said in this House in 1997 on the legal position on the railway land under the Points of Agreement, Members will recall very clearly that there are clear legal undertakings and responsibilities under these agreements and the time schedule under these agreements is not affected. There are certain things to be performed and undertaken under the agreements and that continue to be our position.”
“As to the Member's specific question on the CPF, which is one of the bilateral issues to be discussed in the package, I think Singapore's position on why we have the legal requirements governing withdrawal of CPF funds by West Malaysians has been made clear by my colleague, Dr Lee Boon Yang, and many others in this House as well as elsewhere. Essentially, the rules have provided for certain withdrawal procedures and we have followed the rules. And the explanations for the existence of the rules have also been explained, and the points have been registered that the regime of withdrawal for West Malaysians is, in fact, in some sense, more advantageous than that for Singaporeans. The West Malaysians can withdraw it, I think, five years earlier than Singaporeans and they do not have to have any minimum sum. But notwithstanding this, we have said that as part of an overall package deal, we are prepared to look at it, and that position continues.”
“First, on the fourth aspect about deadline, maybe I should adopt, as the lawyers say, "mutatis mutandis", everything that Deputy Prime Minister has said about deadlines. Let me say that various ties, whether sports, cultural and other relationships, have continued. But as Members know, these are very much affected by episodic or cyclical ups and downs in bilateral relations. I would say bilateral relations have on the whole been maintained. But if you look at the list of issues in the package, such as the withdrawal of CPF funds earlier than the legal requirements by West Malaysians, the long-term supply of water to Singapore, the position of KTM land in Singapore, the Singapore Air Forces' use of Malaysian airspace and the location of Malaysia's CIQ in Singapore - if you look at all these issues - obviously these are outstanding bilateral issues and it is in the interest of both countries that they be resolved expeditiously. Now, I cannot speculate why they have not reverted with dates - whether it is because they have been pre-occupied with certain domestic considerations which could be one explanation. But I cannot speculate. As was mentioned in discussions on the questions arising from CLOB, it was mentioned by Members that Prime Minister has said that he hoped to meet Dr Mahathir after Chinese New Year, and Dr Mahathir is reported to have said that he is agreeable to such a meeting. But when exactly such a meeting will take place I do not know. And I also do not wish to predict the substantive outcome of such a meeting. But I would anticipate that when the two Prime Ministers do meet, one possibility is that they may give certain directions to the officials on this whole question of the package discussion.”
“No such reports have been received by my Ministry. BILL INTRODUCED FIRE SAFETY (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Fire Safety Act (Chapter 109A of the 1994 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. REARRANGEMENT OF ORDER OF BUSINESS (Motion)”
“Thirdly, as to his question on the action taken against owners who have neglected maintenance of their buildings, the Building and Construction Authority will take action against Management Corporations and owners who neglect to maintain their buildings or fail to comply with any notice of the Commissioner of Building Control to engage a professional engineer to inspect their buildings for structural safety, regardless of whether the owners are anticipating an en-bloc sale.”
“On the specific questions posed by the Member, firstly, as to his question about correcting the unhealthy trend of greed associated with en-bloc sales, obviously, this is a matter of opinion, depending on how one looks at it. To the majority owners, they are simply realising the worth of their assets because of the change in the plot ratio. The higher plot ratio gives them the choice of selling the whole land with a higher premium for each owner than if they were to sell their units individually. Before the amendment on en-bloc sales by majority consent, a small minority, even only one, could block the sale. This often led to strained and acrimonious relationships. For example, in the case of Kim Lin Mansions, which representors in the Select Committee spoke about unhappiness amongst the owners over the blocked sale culminated in a court case. With the announcement of the proposed amendments, the court case was withdrawn, thus avoiding a long, expensive and bitter court proceeding. Secondly, the Member asked about threats against owners who do not wish to give consent. If an owner has been threatened into giving his consent, such consent would not be valid in law. If the Strata Titles Board is satisfied that the consent was not given voluntarily, then the Board would take this into account in determining whether the required level of consent has been attained. Furthermore, those who are threatened could also lodge a police report or make a complaint before a Magistrate for the issue of a private summons for criminal intimidation under the Penal Code.”
“Sir, the Member's Questions reflect his concern about recent press reports on en-bloc sales. However, the reports of several en-bloc sale proposals are actually not surprising. The Government first announced its intention to review the need for unanimous consent for strata developments in November 1997. There was considerable interest in en-bloc sales because of the upward revision in the plot ratios. This meant that the land can be redeveloped for a more intensive use, thus increasing the land value. There was a need to move away from the 100% or unanimous consent requirement to facilitate the redevelopment of land to maximise its use and economic potential. Sir, Members will recall that we took time and care in crafting the legislation. The Bill went through a Select Committee and was passed at the Third Reading in this House on 4th May 1999. It was brought into force recently on 11th October 1999. During this 2-year period, those who were keen on selling en-bloc sales were waiting to see the final provisions of the law before proceeding. Therefore, what we are really seeing now are those proposals which had been put on hold during the last 2 years, pending passage of the legislation. Let me stress that while some of the en-bloc sale proposals have been transacted, other proposals are still on tender and are still awaiting a response from interested parties. The Government does not prescribe the sale. It is the choice of the owners. Whether an en-bloc sale proceeds will depend on whether there is a convergence of interests of the owners as well as the buyers where there is a price which the owners are happy to accept.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I have your permission to answer the three Questions together, including the Question addressed to the Minister for National Development who has asked me to answer on his behalf as they are all related?”
“The lesson to all is that Singapore's policies, both economic and political, and the policy of social cohesion and integration which this Government has pursued since independence have worked for Singapore and all of us, both the Government and the people of Singapore, must ensure rigorously that these policies are supported and continue to work in Singapore. This has kept Singapore going despite enormous obstacles, including the financial crisis and the lesson to be learned from what is happening in the rest of the region is that when we have a good formula and recipe for Singapore's success, let us all work together to make sure that it is not in any way undermined.”
“I am not sure if I understood the thrust of his question. But if his question is that this is a good window of opportunity during which to work with the Indonesian government to improve bilateral and economic relations, the answer is, as we have said, yes because the new government is, in our view, the best possible team in the circumstances. They have both legitimacy and moral authority and during the discussions that took place here as well as in the press conference, President Abdurrahman Wahid made it clear that he is intent on restoring investor confidence and bringing about stability in Indonesia.”
“Sir, I think the Member would have read that this proposal has not been acceptable to the Indonesians because the conditions and safeguards which we have proposed were, in their view, not agreeable. So this proposal has not been taken up. Mr Simon S. C. Tay (Nominated Member): Sir, in this regard, does the Minister see that there is a window of opportunity for better relations and that in this relationship improvements can be made in terms of governance and rule of law to attract more investors?”
“Sir, I would not like at this stage to anticipate too much and try to predict the various outcomes. Let us wait for the mission to be led by Mr Philip Yeo to go and assess the situation. This was the first meeting at the Heads of Government level with the new President. The key, as we have said in many statements issued, is really the restoration of investor confidence, stability and to restore the linkages between the private sector. The question of what kind of mechanism, whether Business Council or otherwise, of course can be explored if and when this question arises later. But at the moment I think the area that we have pinpointed, such as restoring of stability and investor confidence, is the key. The form and the instrument may be looked at later.”
“Vacant State lands not required for immediate development are let out for interim uses on either Tenancy Agreement or Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL) through public tender. However, direct allocation of State Land for use by voluntary welfare and community organisations may be allowed if it is supported and rental/fees are funded by the relevant Ministries. Government's policy is to charge market rates for use of State land/buildings by all users to reflect the true cost of their operations. If there are grounds for subsidising the operations of an organisation, the relevant Ministry should consider doing so. The subsidy should not be in the form of nominal TOL fee for use of State land/buildings. The piece of vacant land in question is managed by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) as agent of Land Office. Land Office is prepared to consider interim use by the Aljunied Constituency Sports Club on TOL pending the development of the site. However, the Club has to pay market rate for the use of the land. If subsidy is required, the Club should approach Singapore Sports Council or the Ministry of Community Development for a grant to pay the market rate. INDIAN HERITAGE CENTRE 2. Mr Shriniwas Rai asked the Minister for Information and the Arts if he will consider allocating a building for an Indian Heritage Centre in Little India if the Indian community wants to set up such a Centre.”
“Total Inflow of Trained Resignations Retirements Teachers into Schools 1996 Primary 844 229 193 Secondary 343 288 119 JC/CI (*) 109 71 10 Total 1296 588 322 1997 Primary 774 205 345 Secondary 903 305 186 JC/CI (*) 153 45 16 Total 1830 555 547 1998 Primary 908 199 423 Secondary 630 253 268 JC/CI (*) 184 45 14 Total 1722 497 705 (*) JC/CI: Junior Colleges and Centralised Institutes as both offer `A' level programmes.”
“I refer the Member to my reply, at our last sitting, to the question from Mr Harun Ghani. I then informed this House that senior officials from Singapore and Malaysia have had three rounds of discussions this year on the package of bilateral issues. I had also informed the House that they would probably have a fourth round of talks later this month in Kuala Lumpur. This remains the situation. We are waiting for the Malaysians to revert with specific dates. During the discussions to-date, both sides stated their positions on the various issues included in the package. More work needs to be done to bring our positions closer together. As I had informed at our last sitting, my Malaysian counterpart and I agreed during his visit to Singapore last month that our officials should try to narrow the gaps on the issues so as to arrive at a win-win package deal. This remains our expectation and our approach. STATISTICS OF TEACHING STAFF 2. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan asked the Minister for Education, for each of the years 1996, 1997 and 1998, if he will state the numbers of teachers in primary and secondary schools and junior colleges that were (i) recruited; (ii) resigned; and (iii) retired. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: The table below shows the inflow of trained teachers to schools, and the resignations and retirements from schools over the last three years. The overall staffing situation in schools has improved over the years.”
“His concern is noted. I will discuss it with the Committee. It is really a question of balancing. From the point of view of promoting the interests of our educational institutions, the ideal situation of course is if they do not have to observe copyright at all! But we have to balance the interest of users of copyright in the private sector, individual users, corporate users, educational users, state users of copyright as well as the rights of copyright owners. This is really the heart of copyright legislation - how do you balance competing interests to strike a balanced regime that promotes and protects the interest of copyright owners, and at the same time does not hinder the dissemination of knowledge, acquisition of knowledge and eventually the advancement of our national interest. 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. LAND SURVEYORS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“We have made amendments as a result of feedback and experience to some of the other provisions which we enacted sometime ago. And so it goes on. Copyright is one area of the law which is fast evolving. So we will see how these provisions work. I hope that in the light of experience, they will work effectively. But our consultations with the industry and other professional bodies as well as the different agencies and Ministries will continue. And it may be necessary after a decent interval of time to come back to this House if we find that the provisions need updating. Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Point of clarification, Sir. In referring to a classroom situation, the Minister has mentioned that in the print medium situation, the teachers are allowed 5% copying and that where online teaching is used, the teacher would have ample protection. I am just concerned that in the situation we are in today, we want to have a nation of IT users and teachers must therefore have the utmost freedom to teach and use facilities that sometimes may not be there, in a sense that not all classrooms have online connections and not all students can afford. In a print medium situation, the students can buy books if more than 5% is used. But not all students will be able to afford an online connection, especially one without wires in a classroom situation.”
“In appropriate circumstances, for example, in the case where a photocopying machine has been found to be predominantly used for making infringing copies by the defendant on the particular facts of a case, the court can order that photocopying machine, for example, to be delivered up to the plaintiff. Dr Lily Neo then referred to clause 23. It is a provision relating to offences committed by partnerships or body corporate. Let me say here that this provision is not new in our laws. An equivalent provision can be found in the Trade Marks Act and the Patents Act. In fact, you can find similar approaches in at least 20 other pieces of legislation in our statute books. The provision really gives flexibility whether to charge only the corporation or the individual, or both. Sometimes the facts of the case would make it appropriate to charge only one or the other. Sometimes it would be necessary to charge both the corporation and the individual to ensure that either one or the other is not let off unfairly. Let me stress that this is not what lawyers referred to as a "strict liability" provision. In other words, the partners who are directors and who are proved to be ignorant or who have attempted to prevent the commission of the offence would not be caught by this provision. In other words, the prosecution will have to produce evidence against these people before they are convicted. I think I have touched on the main provisions. But my reply should not be taken to dismiss their ideas and suggestions out of hand. There are many different approaches to these difficult, tricky issues of copyright. The fact that we have adopted these measures shows that we would like to give these approaches a try.”
“Here again this phrase is a mirror of section 7(2B), the existing provision. The amendments merely extend the application of an already existing provision to enable its application in a digital environment. What the provision really says is that "reasonable portion" means a single chapter of the work or 10% of the work, whichever is the greater. But this is based on an existing approach already to be found in the Bill. On clause 10, Dr Lily Neo raised the question of 14 days and 7 days. Here again I want to point out that the 14-day limit is the approach already to be found in existing section 51. The Bill merely extends the existing provisions so as to make them applicable in an electronic environment. Section 51 is more appropriate for multiple copying by educational institutions. If her concern, as I understand it, is about the problems which researchers and students may face, I wish to point out to her that students or researchers can rely on the fair dealing provision in section 35 for private study and research. And in section 35, there is no 14-day limit. Then Dr Lily Neo referred to clauses 15 and 17 concerning section 120(1) on the phraseology "predominantly used" and why this has not been defined. We have not defined this term because in some instances, and this is one, it may be better to leave it to the courts to apply the provisions to the facts of individual cases. It is not possible really to give a definition to every term because circumstances may vary so vastly.”
“As to the timeframe in which the NSP should act, I think a reasonable time is a tested formula, and I doubt if a NSP would not act within such reasonable time when it receives a statutory declaration. Turning to the questions raised by Dr Lily Neo, first, she also touched on clause 3 (section 7, subsection 2A) on "reasonable portion". Let me repeat here again that section 7(2A) is an extension of existing section 7(2A) into the digital environment. The 10% yardstick is actually taken from section 7(2A) which provides that a reasonable portion includes a copy of not more than 10% of the number of pages in a work. The approach of taking 10% as a yardstick, of course, was taken sometime back when we enacted this particular provision in 1987. It is felt that this provision has worked quite well all these years. And when we decided to insert the new section 7(2A) to make the term "reasonable portion" relevant to the digital environment, it was felt that there was no good reason to depart from the yardstick of 10% which has been used all these years. While it is clear that copying only 10% for the purpose of research and private study will not amount to infringement, I want to stress that this does not mean that copying more than 10% will automatically result in infringement. In other words, where more than a reasonable portion is copied for the purpose of research and private study, we then deal with the issue whether the copying is a fair dealing in the light of circumstances of the case. And as Members know, there are other provisions which relate to fair dealing. Dr Lily Neo also touched on provisions which talk about work being divided into chapters and so on, whether it is ambiguous, if not confusing.”
“As Dr Toh See Kiat knows, it has to be authenticated by a Commissioner of Oaths. Having a requirement for court order, in my view, would be too cumbersome as the real idea here is to give copyright owners a quick redress before they take out copyright infringement actions. So nobody has said about statutory declaration. But I do not think people in Singapore take statutory declarations that lightly because there are penalties which follow if one makes a statutory declaration fraudulently. The requirement of a statutory declaration, in my view, itself should suffice to prevent abuse because there is a redress for prosecution for false statutory declaration. Any aggrieved party can also take out a civil action for malicious prosecution against a defender who has made a false declaration. As this provision concerns Singapore's network service providers, I think it is reasonable for us to expect the copyright owners would contact the network service providers through agents located in Singapore. It is foreseeable that in practice, such declarations may be made for collective management agencies. As I have said, mechanisms for redress for abuse of notice can be taken care of by civil action. In the United States, as he referred to the system in the US, there is a challenge mechanism because the notice is not required to be a statutory declaration as far as I understand the United States system, and there is less safeguard against abuse. But as we have incorporated the safeguard in the notice through the requirement of a statutory declaration before a Commissioner of Oaths, the challenge mechanism involving NSP may not be necessary. That is the explanation.”
“I realise that Dr Toh See Kiat would favour a more liberal regime where even if he were to download it onto his personal laptop, from a policy point of view, it would be difficult to give a blanket exemption for downloading for teaching purposes. But let me at the same time point out that teaching online is facilitated because if the teaching is done through real time access to websites, they can always rely on the exception for browsing. Dr Toh See Kiat referred to clause 21, new section 193B, and whether we should insert the words "without prejudice". I should point out that the proposed new section 193B is wider than section 10 of the Electronic Transactions Act because there is no requirement that the material is a third party material which is found in section 10 of the other Act. Therefore, there is no need to insert "without prejudice" since it is not narrower than section 10. It is wider. In other words, this provision is more detailed only because it is meant to apply exclusively to the question of copyright. The Electronic Transactions Act has a different objective. Dr Toh also talked about terminology control, technical contractual provisions, ISP prohibiting users from accessing pornography, and so on. I think the answer to this is to say that the control required is over the network. The conjunctive end for operator and control in section 193C(2)(a) is the operative element. Therefore, it must be a network operated by the NSP as well. An NSP is only obliged to remove materials from such a network. He also talked about the requirement of statutory declaration. I would say that we should not read too much into the term purported as a statutory declaration really has to be authenticated.”
“The definition should not be made conjunctive, because if we did so, then it will imply that the compilation must satisfy all three paragraphs before it can be protected, and that is not the intention. Dr Toh also made a point about "relevant material". The way the phrase "relevant material" is defined in section 7A(3) is to include a work and a work is defined in section 7 as meaning a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work. Therefore, graphics would be an artistic work and is a relevant material. A computer program is a relevant material regardless of whether it is published or not. A published edition of a work is specifically mentioned because there is a separate copyright in the typographical format that lasts 25 years in a published edition. There is no need to state computer program again in paragraph (d) since paragraph (a) already mentions a computer program, and that will cover published and unpublished computer programs. Dr Toh See Kiat also spoke about clause 10, new section 51(3) and 51(4), and talked about the teachers' possible problem. Let me say, in reply, that the 5% rule applies in the print media as well. Thus, in the print media, if he looks at the provisions of the Act, the teacher can only make multiple copies of 5% of a work for teaching purposes without infringing copyright. But it is felt that there is no reason not to apply the same restriction in an electronic environment. I should also point out that new section 51 only applies to making a copy on a network controlled or operated by an educational institution.”
“In arriving at the approaches, we have taken into account the developments in other countries as well as the existing scheme in our Copyright Act because our approach has been that if the existing scheme for other forms of copyright has worked fairly well, then we will try to follow as far as possible a similar approach and we will try to be consistent. But as I said, this is not the last word on the subject. Having said that, let me turn to some of the specific points raised by Dr Toh See Kiat, in the order in which he referred to. First, he talked about clause 3 (section 7) on "reasonable portion". Of course, he has a point as to whether we could leave "reasonable portion" undefined for electronic documents or whether 10% of the bytes is arbitrarily rigid. Let me explain that the approach we have taken is to define "reasonable portion" for electronic works because we wanted to provide in the legislation a minimum level of certainty. Therefore, the definition, I should stress, is not exhaustive. It is expressly provided that the definition does not limit the meaning of the phrase "reasonable portion". If, say, more than 10% of the number of bytes is copied, the court could still regard that as copying only a reasonable portion, because it all depends on the circumstances of the case. I am advised that such flexibility will address the special cases which Dr Toh See Kiat referred to, such as the example concerning digital watermarks. Then he referred to questions of compilation, whether it is conjunctive or disjunctive in clause 4 (new section 7A). Let me say that this definition in subsection 3 is actually intended to capture any compilation that falls within either paragraph (a), (b) or (c).”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank both Dr Toh See Kiat and Dr Lily Neo for their comments. Before I deal with their specific points, since the issues they have raised touched on fairly technical matters, let me make a few preliminary comments. First, I am not an expert on some of these technical issues and I will bow to my colleagues on technical issues such as digital watermarks, animated graphics and so on. But let me assure my colleagues that these and other questions of details have been carefully considered and formulated by an inter-agency Committee which included experts from different agencies, such as the National Computer Board, staff from the National University of Singapore who are well versed in computer law as well as representatives from other agencies. The next point I want to make is that on the solutions and approaches which I referred to and which are to be found in the Bill, I do not expect them to please or satisfy everyone because there are so many different ways and approaches to solving these very difficult problems in the context of ever changing technological developments. Also, different countries are grappling with these issues and have adopted diverse approaches. We could, of course, wait for months and years to see how the dust has settled in other countries. But because of the considerations which I have alluded to in my speech just now as well as last year, we want to have an effective and up-to-date copyright regime and intellectual property right regime. We have to make changes as and when the need arises. So we cannot wait for all the developments which have taken place and then decide which is the most perfect solution. It is really a matter of judgment.”
“There is also a need to make sure that there is a certain time frame to respond and a redress mechanism perhaps for abuse of the notice to take down. This procedure can also be evaluated in a court of law. Finally, on clause 21, I would certainly hope the Minister can clarify, because the words "network service provider" are not defined, whether perhaps a search engine provider would be such a network service provider. In the circumstances where a search engine provider may actually allow a user of the Internet to download certain copies of other people's copyrighted materials, would a search engine provider then be deemed to be a violator, infringer or a facilitator of that infringement? I hope that with these clarifications, the Bill would be a far more understandable provision when it is applied in the market place.”
“Sir, my final point is that under clause 21 of the Bill which proposes a new section 193C, particularly subsections 2(a) and 2(c), there is mention of control and I seek the Minister's clarification. "Control" is not defined and it could well be technical. Most of the time it is a technical control. But would it be possible for somebody to argue in court that because the ISP has put in certain contractual provisions, for example, to prohibit a user from accessing pornography on pain of damages, that he therefore has control and is out of this defence? The second point under this clause I want to raise is that there is a procedure of what I would call a notice to take down. In other words, if a network has got infringing material and the copyright owner says, "I send you notice to take it down, you must do so." As it is phrased currently, I think there is some room for abuse. First of all, it is possible where the stakes are high enough for somebody to allege infringement and therefore send a statutory declaration purportedly signed by him. And then there is no timeframe to take down the pages and there is no procedure to challenge this notice to take down. It, first of all, should be necessary, not just to have a statutory declaration, because a person, where the stakes are high enough, may say, "I am happy to be fined for perjury, but I want to stop this competitor in his tracks." So it would be necessary for a properly authenticated statutory declaration, or perhaps a court order. Secondly, it would be important to clarify how an overseas copyright owner can get a statutory declaration that is valid under Singapore law. What happens if his own law does not allow for or does not permit a statutory declaration?”
“Sometimes not all classrooms have got the on-line connection, or perhaps there is an on-line connection but the teacher feels that when he teaches, he wants to be sure that he can logon to that website without having to wait for traffic to clear, without having all kinds of unexpected problems. So he may actually want to download the whole site onto his laptop, and then refer to it in the course of his lectures. As I read currently, clause 10, it does not seem to protect him in that sort of situation, because when he downloads a whole website to protect himself from unexpected downtime, for example, he would actually be breaching the 5% or the 500-page rule. The fourth point I want to make is on clause 21 which is the proposed section 193B. There is this further elaboration of what a network service provider will be protected against. When I first read this Bill, Sir, I realised that there is a general immunity to network service providers given in section 10 of the Electronic Transactions Act. And when I heard the Minister's speech in this House, I have the understanding - and I hope the Minister will correct me if this is the wrong understanding - that there is the general immunity in the Electronic Transactions Act, and what we are legislating here is that in certain circumstances where copyright is concerned, we have a special immunity for certain network service providers who feel that they can come under this protection and therefore it does not prejudice his general defence under the Electronic Transactions Act. If it does prejudice his position, then I would urge this House to include the words "without prejudice" to the Electronic Transactions Act as a prefix, so to speak, a clause which prefixes this new section.”
“And so when this section deals with compilation as disjunctive references, I take it that it misses out on the fact that a database or an Internet site may contain video and data at the same time. Perhaps the Minister could also clarify this rather technical point. Secondly, "relevant material" here is defined but I think it probably misses out on certain aspects of computer databases and web pages, and that it does not appear to me to cover animated graphics or unpublished computer programmes basically on the exclusio unius principle, ie, in the first definition of "relevant material", it refers specifically to a work, "including a computer program". Therefore, subsequently, when it says in paragraph (d) "a published edition of a work", there would be no reference to a computer program. The third point I want to make about this Bill is that in clause 10, in the proposed section 51(3) and (4), there are certain exemptions given for teachers who teach in educational institutions. Sometimes they do have to make copies of copyrighted material and we do need to give them some protection from being prosecuted or sued for breaching somebody's copyright. I hope, however, and this is not clear in the Bill, there is protection for a teacher who is teaching a class using a laptop and - besides the fact that he has got to download a website and other relevant copyrighted materials on his laptop - sometimes, he may actually need to access on-line, say, eg, a website to demonstrate the features of the website.”
“Under clause 4 which is a new section 7A, there is an attempt to include multimedia material in the definition of "compilation". Most web sites today would be compilations of some sort. There will be different things in there - texts, graphics, animations, video and so on. And it would really be useful to say that these things are also protected. Again, I would like to explore the further question which is whether we should really try and extend the concept of literary work to these areas, or whether we should actually start thinking of a special right, perhaps a database right and special computer compilation right. Some countries have indeed database law. However, computerised material does not contain just computer databases. And under section 7A, that appears to be the intention. The compilation should be of various relevant materials which includes sound recordings, cinematograph films and so on. But sub-section (3) of the proposed section 7A deals with compilation or table wholly of relevant materials or compilation or table of partly relevant materials, or compilation of data. The definition of "data" here is not stated but I suppose reading in the context, it refers to computer data and therefore you either have a compilation of relevant materials wholly or in part or just purely computer data. Sir, I do believe however that the word "data" is not just simply a technical word for bytes and bits of computer data, but it also means nuggets of facts and figures which together form information. And therefore that is the plain English meaning of this word and it would mean therefore that a compilation can either be of relevant materials like video, tapes and sound recordings and/or data.”
“It is therefore good to have this Bill but I think it may one day be important for us to think of a sui generis protection, not to extend copyright but to think of a specific right to protect computerised material. In particular, I would like to raise certain issues in clause 3 of the Bill which redefines the proposed section 7 of the Copyright Act. Under the proposed section 7(2), there is an attempt to indicate what reasonable portion means in the context of electronic material. In the old world of paper, we could say that 10% of a book would be a substantial copy, and anything beyond that is not a reasonable portion to use. However, I am a little concerned that we are now trying to extend this paper world rule into the electronic medium and trying to say that instead of 10% of the material, we now talk about 10% of the bytes. And 10% of the bytes, to me, is really an arbitrary and rigid definition for an electronic medium. For example, if I take two pages from a book of 100 pages, that is not an infringement under the 10% rule. But two pages from an electronic work of similar length may actually contain two pages in format which contain a lot of bytes. It could be, for example, in PDF format, video, sound or animated graphics, which require a lot of bytes. Or perhaps in these two pages, the author has embedded his digital watermark and therefore there are a lot of bytes in there. And just by taking two pages from the book, not knowing that he has embedded this digital watermark, I have infringed his copyright. I would like the Minister to assure us that this indeed is not the case. Otherwise, a blind extension of the old rule is not good enough.”
“As technologies are ever evolving and as new issues surface as a result of the constantly changing environment, I must say that this Bill is by no means the last word on the subject. We will continue to monitor international developments and we may have to propose further refinements to our copyright regime to cope with the technological developments as and when the need arises. We are committed to ensuring that our copyright law will be responsive to the changing needs of industries and we will continue to evolve to take into account new developments. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Minister's motion and the three purposes of this Bill. I would like the Minister to address, however, certain wider concerns and make certain clarifications which will help in the future interpretation of the Act in the market place. I am also glad that the Minister says that this Bill is not the last word, and I therefore think that even if these issues are not addressed today, they can be addressed in a future copyright amendment. It is important to realise that copyright was a right created to protect the authors of books, and it has been slowly extended over the years and centuries to include dramatic performances, sound recordings, films and now the further extension into the world of e-commerce and the Internet. It is very important to realise too that some of the older concepts have to be changed, because as the Minister has mentioned, every time we browse and surf the Internet, we are actually breaching somebody's copyright, because we are copying his material on to our computer.”
“Based on feedback and experience, two further safeguards are introduced by clauses 18 and 20 of the Bill to ensure that the border enforcement provisions are not abused. The first safeguard will empower an authorised officer to require a complainant to give security in relation to damages which he may be ordered to pay for wrongful seizure. The second safeguard is to allow a person aggrieved by the seizure to apply to the court for compensation if the complainant fails to follow up on the seizure by taking infringement action, or having taken infringement action, the court then rules against the complainant or if the complainant withdraws the action. Other Amendments Sir, to wrap up, may I quickly touch on the remaining amendments in the Bill. Clause 13 deletes section 108(2) so as to widen the scope of the public performance rights of authors. Clauses 15 and 17 amend sections 120 and 136 to widen the category of items on which the court may make a delivery up order. The amendment to section 136 further allows an application for search warrant to be made in any court. Currently, such applications can only be made before a magistrate. Clause 22 amends section 199 to provide that a broadcaster's right to re-transmit a broadcast by cable without infringing copyright in the underlying work is restricted to broadcasts originating in Singapore. Future directions Sir, in closing, let me say that this Bill reinforces Singapore's commitment to provide a strong intellectual property rights regime to encourage the growth of a knowledge-based or information economy and to promote e-commerce and creative innovations.”
“This will facilitate educational institutions using Internet and other new technologies to conduct distance learning courses and other educational activities. Performers' protection Last year, we introduced provisions in the Copyright Act to protect performers' rights. These provisions are found in Part XII of the Act. Based on feedback which we have received, a number of measures are introduced in this Bill to fine-tune the provisions concerning performer's rights and to allow those rights to be protected more effectively. First, in order to conform with international norms, performers' rights are extended to allow performers to have recourse against commercial dealings in pirated recordings of their performances and to make such commercial dealings an offence. Secondly, the present restriction in the Act against assignment by performers of their right to sue is removed. This will allow performers to take action through collective management agencies. Thirdly, the Bill also allows a broadcaster and a performer to agree to a period of retention for recordings of his performance made for broadcast which is longer than the statutory prescribed period. This amendment will give effect to existing commercial practice. Border enforcement measures Last year, the Copyright Act was amended to introduce border enforcement measures. These are in sections 140A through 140R of the Act. These provisions allow a copyright owner who suspects that a shipment of pirated goods is coming into Singapore to alert the Customs and Excise Department so that the goods can be seized. Certain safeguards have already been built into the provisions when they were introduced last year.”
“Transfer of electronic copies Clause 21 of the Bill further introduces a section 193F to facilitate the transfer of works in the digital environment. This clarifies that if a person who has bought an electronic copy of materials transfers it, the transferee will have the same rights as those enjoyed by the transferor provided the transferor does not keep any copy for himself. "Reasonable portion" Let me touch on some minor amendments to extend existing copyright concepts to make them relevant to the digital environment. The first concerns the concept of "reasonable portion". Currently, the Copyright Act permits copying of a reasonable portion of a copyrighted work under certain circumstances. As a guideline, a "reasonable portion" is defined by reference to the number of pages of the work. Such a measurement may not be possible in the electronic environment. Clause 3 of the Bill therefore extends the definition for works in the digital format by using the measurement of electronic bytes. Exceptions for libraries and archives The second amendment concerns the exception for libraries and archives to make a copy of a work for preservation and other purposes and the exception for anyone to make a copy of an unpublished work kept in a library or archive for research and private study in sections 47 and 48. These amendments remove or replace words like "microform" and "manuscript". Exceptions for educational institutions The third amendment concerns the ability of educational institutions to make copies of works within prescribed limits for educational purposes. Clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill extend this permission to include copies of works on networks controlled or operated by educational institutions.”
“If he does that, he retains his protection under section 193C against copyright infringement actions. At the same time, section 193D protects the network service provider against any action brought by persons who want the material to remain on the network. By adopting this course of action, the network service provider ensures that he cannot be sued for copyright infringement for materials hosted by him. Alternatively, the network service provider can choose to ignore the Statutory Declaration. Once he does this, he loses the legal protection conferred on a network service provider by section 193C. This does not mean that the network service provider automatically becomes liable for copyright infringement. What it means is that the network service provider's liability will then have to be determined in accordance with the other general provisions in the Copyright Act, and it also means that he can no longer rely on the special immunity given to a network service provider. Why would a network service provider choose this course of action, and thereby throwing away the network service provider immunity and risk being found liable for copyright infringement under those general legal provisions? He may want to do so, for example, if he is confident, that the material is not infringing. A person who makes a false Statutory Declaration can be punished for doing so. Sir, the new sections 193B to 193D finely balance the rights and interests of copyright owners, users of materials and network service providers. They provide legal certainty for both network service providers as well as copyright owners, while preserving at the time, a certain level of freedom of action for network service providers.”
“I am told that every time a person views a web page on the Internet, he causes at least six copies of the web page to be made. Consequently, there is some uncertainty whether copyright is being infringed when one browses through the Internet. The new section 193E introduced by clause 21 of the Bill makes clear that copyright is not infringed when end users cause incidental copies to be made in order to view, listen or utilise works made available on the Internet. Limitation of liability for network service providers and removal of infringing materials by network service providers I now come to what are probably the central provisions of the Bill. Network service providers play a vital role in the on-line delivery of content for copyright owners. It is therefore important that the legal framework gives network service providers certainty about their liabilities and responsibilities to copyright owners. Clause 21 of the Bill therefore introduces sections 193B to 193D to address these concerns. These amendments ensure that network service providers are not liable for any kind of incidental copying that may occur in the technical processes of carrying out their activities (for example, caching). The amendments distinguish between materials to which the network service provider provides access and materials which are hosted by a network service provider at the direction of a user. In the latter case, section 193C allows the protection to be lifted if a copyright owner files a Statutory Declaration that those materials are infringing. A network service provider faced with such a Statutory Declaration can do one of two things. He can immediately remove the materials as demanded by the copyright owner.”
“There is uncertainty as to whether this is confined to compilation consisting solely of literary works (in which case, multimedia works would not be protected), or if it also includes compilation of different kinds of work (in which case, multimedia works will be protected). The Bill therefore provides a new definition which says that "literary work" includes a compilation of any form of works. This will afford copyright protection to multimedia works. This new form of protection will be limited to the intellectual creation involved in the selection or arrangement of the contents of the multimedia work. The protection will be in addition to and independent of the copyright protection which the individual underlying works may already enjoy. Protection for electronic rights management information Copyright owners are increasingly using electronic rights management information to protect their rights in cyberspace. Electronic rights management information includes information attached electronically to a work which identifies the work, the author or copyright owner and any terms and conditions relating to the use of the work. Clause 34 of the Bill provides for civil remedies against tampering with electronic rights management information. The legal protection of electronic rights management information will help copyright owners better protect their rights in cyberspace. Amendments to provide legal certainty Sir, I turn now to the second group of amendments aimed at providing greater legal certainty for the application of copyright protection in the digital environment. Browsing exception We all know that the use of the Internet has become increasingly prevalent. It has become an invaluable source of information and entertainment for many in the world today.”
“Amendments to improve copyright protection in cyberspace Having made those introductory remarks, let me move on to the proposed amendments. I would first deal with the first group of amendments, i.e, those intended to improve copyright protection and enforcement measures for copyright owners in cyberspace. The first aspect is that concerning temporary or electronic reproduction right. One of the key rights of a copyright owner is the exclusive right to make copies of his works. It is presently not very clear if this exclusive right extends to electronic copies and transient copies made in the electronic environment. The Bill clarifies this by extending the right to cover electronic reproduction. Such an extension will give copyright owners an effective means to control the copying of works that they make available on the Internet and through electronic transmissions. Protection for compilations In recent years, development in computer technology and the advent of the Internet has led to a proliferation of multimedia works. The issue of copyright protection for multimedia works has become increasingly important. A multimedia work can be made up of different types of underlying works, such as sound recordings, photographs, film clips and write-ups. Each of these underlying works presently enjoys individual copyright protection but the multimedia work itself, that is, the effort expended in selecting and compiling these individual underlying works together, may not be protected by copyright. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill address this anomaly by replacing the existing definition of "literary work" in section 7 of the Act with an expanded definition set out in a new section 7A. Currently, "literary work" is defined to include a compilation in words, figures or symbols.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, last year when moving the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, I said that it was not the last word on the subject and that we will have to evolve our copyright legislation in the light of changes in on-going technology. Since then, an inter-agency Committee led by the Registrar of Trade Marks and Patents studied international trends and developments. They proposed the changes in the Bill to meet the new challenges presented by the development of new technology and the increasing popularity of electronic commerce. The proposed amendments address the more urgent needs of copyright owners and users of copyright materials in the on-line environment. It will improve copyright protection and enforcement measures for copyright owners in cyberspace, thereby promoting the use of the Internet by businesses. It will also promote greater legal certainty for both copyright owners and users of copyright works, as well as intermediaries such as network service providers, concerning the application of copyright protection in the digital environment. In formulating these proposals, the Committee considered various international models, including the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organisation Copyright Treaty and the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organisation Performances and Phonograms Treaty. The Committee has a wide representation. In addition to representatives of the relevant governmental agencies, the Committee also included representatives from the National University of Singapore and the media. The Committee also consulted the Law Society and various industry players on the substance of its proposals. Sir, this is a Bill arrived at after an extensive consultative process.”
“Sir, the AOs are registered nurses seconded from MOH. In addition to their nursing training, they undergo pre-operational training and the protocol conversion course similar to that of the paramedics. The AOs undergo stringent assessment by the Singapore General Hospital before being allowed to operate independently. Both the paramedics and AOs are regularly re-certified to ensure that their knowledge and skills are up to standard and updated. Sir, do they exercise due diligence? The paramedics and AOs are guided by a set of protocols and procedures drawn up by SCDF's Medical Advisory Committee which comprises a group of specialists from various medical institutions. Ambulance crew use essentially the same emergency/non-emergency verification system adopted by the hospital A&E departments. Nevertheless, the guiding principle for the paramedics and AOs is that, when in doubt, the patients are to be conveyed to the hospitals. Sir, besides rigorous training and operational guidelines, the SCDF also has an internal audit system to review cases where death occurs (eg, death on arrival). There are also frequent and regular spot checks on the professional care provided by the ambulance officers and paramedics. SCDF also monitors their performance through feedback from the hospitals. Sir, I would like to assure the House that our ambulance crew are competent and do exercise due diligence in deciding whether a person is in need of emergency help.”
“As to the latter part of his question, I will be interested to know if he can cite the chapter and verse because, as far as I am aware - I chaired an ASEAN meeting, both formal meetings and informal discussions as well as a retreat - I do not know of any ASEAN member which has said that it would abandon the policy of constructive engagement. In fact, on the contrary, in the retreat and informal discussions, we had very frank and candid discussions with each other, including Myanmar. SINGAPORE CIVIL DEFENCE FORCE (Competence of paramedic and ambulance attendants) 8. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Home Affairs how his Ministry ensures that paramedic and ambulance attendants of the Singapore Civil Defence Force are competent and exercise due diligence in deciding whether a person is in need of emergency help. The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, the Emergency Ambulance Service of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) is currently operated by SCDF paramedics as well as Ambulance Officers (AOs) seconded from the Ministry of Health (MOH). Sir, to ensure that they are competent, SCDF paramedics and AOs undergo rigorous training before becoming fully operational. SCDF paramedics are trained at SAF's School of Military Medicine. The paramedic training syllabus is recognised by the Paramedic Academy of Justice Institute, British Columbia (Canada), and endorsed by MOH. The training lasts 18 months and includes attachments to hospital Accidents and Emergency (A&E) departments and fire stations. After completing their training, the paramedics undergo a programme of assessment and testing by senior doctors from MOH before being certified operational.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have touched on the constructive engagement policy of ASEAN on several occasions in this House before and I will not repeat in detail what I have said. The constructive engagement policy of ASEAN is not intended to dictate to the Myanmar government what it should or should not do. It is referred to as a constructive engagement policy in comparison with approaches taken by other countries and regions, which is to either isolate Myanmar or to impose sanctions on them. ASEAN decided that it would adopt a different approach of integrating Myanmar within the ASEAN fold and, in that process, encourage Myanmar to see what other countries in ASEAN are doing and, hopefully, they will, in course of time, achieve normalcy. Within the ASEAN constructive engagement policy, different members of ASEAN have engaged in dialogue with Myanmar to convey suggestions on various matters of common interest. This is the ASEAN way. Whether it is the perfect method, whether it will bear fruit and whether it will be successful requires judgement after some years have passed.”