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 18 of 66.
“In many ways, the Security Council is the heart of the UN system. It is the only organ in the UN that has the authority to take decisions that are binding on all member states. Although Singapore has never served on the Security Council before, we believe and we hope that we will be able to bring to the Security Council constructive and useful, shall I say, small state perspective to the Council. This role that we have identified for ourselves will be particularly useful to those UN members who themselves are small states and share our concerns and sense of vulnerability.”
“For example, peace-keeping which was mentioned, Singapore was, as of May 1997, one of only seven countries to sign a MOU with the UN on standby arrangements, ie, to have available officers, observers or medical personnel and aircraft for UN peace-keeping operations. I should also add that at the UN meetings, my Ministry ensures, as far as possible, we have high-calibre delegates to represent Singapore. In this way, we have played an active and constructive role at various UN forums such as the Law of the Sea Conference or the UN Conference on Environment and Development. And within the UN itself, Singapore tries to be active on high profile issues such as the reform of the UN and the UN Security Council. We are asked about our bid for the UN Security Council candidature, what are our chances like. One can never be absolutely sure but at this stage, I would say that I am confident that we have a fairly good chance of being elected. We announced our candidature early in order to give us sufficient time to mount a systematic lobbying campaign. This campaign is going well and we have received many expressions of support from numerous countries in all regional groupings in the UN. As Members know, Singapore is the only declared candidate for the Asian group seat, and this is an Asian group seat in the UN Security Council for the term 2001-2002. All the other ASEAN countries have given public endorsement of our candidature. I believe these factors put us in good stead for successful election in the year 2000. What will Singapore's role be in the Security Council? We have presented our candidature to the Security Council's non-permanent seat for the 2-year term. And if elected, it will give us first-hand experience of how the Security Council operates.”
“Sir, on this matter, I am able to speak with a little bit of personal experience because, many years ago, I was Singapore's Permanent Representative to the UN. And I can say that if it was true then, it is still true today, that as a small country, Singapore lacks the resources to be adequately represented by embassies throughout the world. There will be a limit to the number of embassies we can establish. Therefore, a membership in the UN in the first place provides us with an opportunity to make contact with the broad spectrum of United Nations' member countries, many of whom we would not normally be in contact through diplomatic ties. Let me say also that another important benefit is that through the UN, we are able to project Singapore and to raise Singapore's international profile. Our membership at the UN, together with our participation in UN-related groupings like the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77, also provides us opportunities to develop and maintain our links with other countries in the developing world. Everybody knows that we have limited resources. Therefore, we have focused on a limited number of issues in the UN. We have not taken a blunderbuss approach of staffing every committee and sending large delegations, because we believe a selective approach is one where we will be able to deliver what we have set out to do. I hope that in our own small and modest way we have, over the years, developed the reputation of being a responsible UN member as well as an efficient and effective one, but obviously it must be others who will have to judge us. We have also stepped up our involvement in UN activities in areas of interest to us, but where we may obtain political mileage at minimal cost.”
“I have accordingly written to all my colleagues, the ASEAN Foreign Ministers, as well as to Vietnam, which will be the host for the special admission ceremony, that we should proceed to implement the decision of the leaders. And I expect that Vietnam will consult and settle on a date soon for the formal admission ceremony.”
“Sir, a quick word before Dr Ong moves on to his other cuts. It is not true that we opposed the admission of Cambodia. In fact, Singapore's position on this has been both consistent and based on principles. The decision to admit Cambodia was taken some years ago in 1996 by the leaders of ASEAN. And it was really a question of timing when Cambodia should take its place in ASEAN. Members are aware of the various developments which led to instability in Cambodia. But the formation of the coalition government in November last year was a very important step towards a move to normalcy in Cambodia. Unfortunately, by the time the leaders met in Hanoi for the Summit and where some thought Cambodia could be admitted in time for the Hanoi Summit, it was not possible to take the decision because Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines noted that the political parties to the coalition themselves had announced to the world that a key component of their agreement on the coalition was the establishment of a Senate. And by the time we met in Hanoi, that aspect, which they themselves had proclaimed as an important element, had not yet been given effect by their legislation. So the position we took was that it was premature to take the decision to formally admit them at Hanoi. Rather, we should wait for the establishment of the Senate, because if the Senate was not established and they have already been admitted, then you can have a situation where the political deal could have become unravelled. I am glad to report that last week I received a letter from the Cambodian Foreign Minister informing me that the necessary steps have been taken by the Cambodian National Assembly which has approved the constitutional amendments for the establishment of the Senate.”
“There is a considerable degree of cooperation and mutual benefit from having two financial centres, two prosperous cities in Asia. Healthy competition in some areas is inevitable, but Hong Kong is not Singapore's principal competitor. We are promoting other sectors such as manufacturing, petrochemical and pharmaceuticals, and services (other than financial services). Dr Wang would agree with me that it is in our interest to have a stable and prosperous Hong Kong. Given the nature of our relationship, Singapore and Hong Kong will always cooperate and compete with each other at the same time. The success of one will be a spur to greater success for the other.”
“Parliamentary links, in the form of Singapore-Hong Kong Parliamentary Friendship Group, are consolidated with exchanges of visits from both sides, including the recent visit by Dr Wang and six other MPs. As for the bilateral economic relations, it is healthy and good. Total bilateral trade for 1998 was S$20.2 billion. Total Singapore investment in Hong Kong for 1995 was S$6.27 billion and total Hong Kong investment in Singapore at the end of 1994 was S$5.02 billion. I agree with Dr Wang that the so-called rivalry and competition between Hong Kong and Singapore is more a perception rather than real. However, this perception has somewhat affected the bilateral relations between Hong Kong and Singapore. But we understand the stressful situation in the Asian region as a whole has fanned the "absurd" media frenzy over the so-called rivalry, which was played up by Hong Kong and the Western media. Some SAR officials felt obliged to answer to queries by the legislators and media, which have further added to the frenzy. We have reacted calmly and rationally, although we have, at times, come out to robustly clarify inaccurate and baseless comments made about Singapore, including the example cited by the Member. Singapore's recent financial liberalisation and cost-cutting measures were designed to make Singapore competitive. In some cases, we try to keep up with Hong Kong, not "stamp" on Hong Kong when it is down. Let me cite the Senior Minister in his speech at Tanjong Pagar Chinese New Year gathering, and I quote, "Singapore has learnt from Hong Kong's example and was liberalising its financial sector to keep pace with New York, London, Tokyo, Frankfurt and Hong Kong, not to do Hong Kong in." 6.00 pm Sir, this is not a zero sum game.”
“Australia's investment in Singapore totalled A$1.16 billion as of June 1997. Bilateral trade in 1998 was S$7.4 billion; and c) Other areas. The launching of Singapore-Australian Business Alliance Forum and Parliamentary Friendship Group has further expanded the scope of our bilateral cooperation. Singapore's long-term close linkages with Australia will be beneficial for the region as well. Let me cite two reasons. Firstly, as Singapore and Australia have weathered the current economic crisis better, we have been working closely to help the affected regional countries. We have also agreed to have closer dialogue and cooperation on international and regional financial management and financial reform issues. Secondly, in view of its unique cultural and historical links, Australia could be the interface between the West and the affected Asian countries in resolving the current financial crisis. Australia has shown its desire to play such a role by being engaged in Indonesia and proposing initiatives on international financial reforms. As for Dr Wang Kai Yuen's comments on Singapore-Hong Kong relations, let me give him an overview. Singapore-Hong Kong bilateral relations are warm and close. There are regular visits of leaders and officials from both sides. Bilateral cooperation at officials' level is also progressing well under the Civil Service Exchange Programme. The programme comprises (i) exchange of visits between senior officials; (ii) attachments of civil servants; and (iii) cross appointment of senior officials. There has been a steady flow of incoming visits by senior Hong Kong officials since the handover in July 1997.”
“The warm and strong relations between Singapore and Australia were given impetus by two recent events quoted by him: a) PM Goh made a working visit in early March 1999, just a few days ago, where PM Goh had a frank and useful discussion with Australian Prime Minister Howard and other Australian leaders on regional developments; and b) the Second Singapore-Australia Joint Ministerial Committee (SAJMC) took place in Singapore in February 1999. In this biennial SAJMC, three Ministers from each side meet their counterparts. Dr Ong asked specifically about the Second SAJMC Meeting. In this recent meeting, both sides reviewed the progress in our bilateral relations and exchanged views on international issues and on the implications of the regional financial crisis and regional political developments. Both sides also agreed on several initiatives at the meeting: a G-to-G MOU on IT was concluded between DPM Lee and Australian DPM Tim Fischer. Seven other commercial MOUs/Letters of Intent were also signed. In addition, both sides also agreed to work on establishing a strategic dialogue partnership or relationship between think-tank, a Youth Ambassador Exchange Programme and Third Country Technical Programme courses. The scope and depth of our cooperation with Australia have increased. Let me cite three areas briefly: a) Defence. Defence relations between Singapore and Australia are active and strong. Australia is an important training area for our SAF. We have also cooperated with Australian Defence Force in numerous bilateral and multi-lateral exercises, including the FPDA; b) Economics. Bilateral economic ties are close. Singapore and Australia are top investors and trading partners. Singapore's total foreign direct investment in Australia for 1996 was S$1.82 billion.”
“This is attributable to two major initiatives: Singapore-Thailand Enhanced Partnership (STEP) and Thailand-Singapore Civil Service Cooperation Programme (CSEP). Both initiatives were launched during the official visit of our Prime Minister Goh to Thailand in June 1997 and endorsed by the Thai Government. STEP outlines the broad vision of the two countries to forge a strategic and economic partnership in which the two countries could leverage on, and add value to each other's strengths and competencies. As noted by Dr Ong, the second CSEP was held in February 1999 in Bangkok. In a relatively short period, CSEP has proved to be an important tool to realise the STEP vision. Let me just cite two accomplishments: a) the institutionisation of cooperation between the civil services of Thailand and Singapore which has engendered a culture of consultations and cooperation. The linkages between the two civil services will contribute to the development of a good and mutually beneficial bilateral partnership; and b) the identification of concrete cooperation projects in many areas. Notable progress has been made in the fields of education, trade and investment promotion, tourism, telecommunications, industrial parks/estates, and technical cooperation. An MOU on Cooperation in IT was also signed at the second meeting of CSEP in Bangkok. Such cooperation between Thailand and Singapore is an excellent illustration of how in times of adversity, ASEAN countries can pull together and press on with regional cooperation. Dr Ong Chit Chung also commented on Australia-Singapore relations. He is right.”
“Sir, with your permission, my colleague, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary drew my attention to the fact that I inadvertently omitted to reply to Dr Wang Kai Yuen, although it was on an earlier matter, when he asked me for information about the bridge proposal. In response, let me say that the Singapore Government has not received any proposal from the Malaysian Government on the development of a new bridge to replace the Causeway. As I have said before, and so has the Minister for National Development, any proposal for such a project will require the approval of both governments. Of course, Singapore will seriously consider any initiative that will foster closer cooperation between Singapore and Malaysia. Naturally, we cannot give a response in abstract terms. We need to know pertinent details. Why is there a need to replace the Causeway with a bridge in the first place? What will the whole project cost be and what are the cost benefits? Will the Singapore end properly tie up with the Woodlands train checkpoint? What will be the toll charges, if any? All these must be addressed, not as a private sector proposal, but in a proposal from the government of Malaysia. So we need a formal proposal, and if there is one from the Malaysian government, we will of course consider it. The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Dr Ow Chin Hock): Sir, let me first respond to Dr Ong's comments on Thailand-Singapore relations. Over the last two years, Thailand-Singapore bilateral relations have further strengthened, characterised by the increased regularity of high-level meetings and exchanges of visits between the two countries.”
“Although the comfort level has increased, we have to deal with decades of suspicion and distrust which cannot be obliterated within a space of a few years. This is why I believe that the process of the ARF and the exchanging of views are important. If the countries are more assured by the process of consultation and consensus, something which I place a lot of emphasis, it will lead to increased trust and eventually cooperation. I might mention here that as an illustration of consultation that even before the ARF is held, I have written to all the Foreign Ministers of the ARF participating countries, soliciting their views on how they see the ARF, to be held in July this year, to move forward, and I have told them that I will take their views into consideration. Although I do not foresee the ARF rapidly becoming a dispute resolution forum, I share Mr Simon Tay's view that we should probably try to move several incremental steps from confidence building measures to a stage of preventive diplomacy. Mr Simon Tay ended up his speech referring to assistance which we can give to regional countries. I am not sure whether time will permit, but one of the questions which was raised by other Members concerns technical cooperation and he will know that the record shows that Singapore, in fact, is doing a lot within the limited resources that we have under its technical cooperation programme. We spend a lot of money, we train thousands from various countries and the majority of participants who benefit are from the countries in the region.”
“My colleagues in ASEAN actually are rather puzzled by the EU position because the European Union has no problems sitting with the Myanmar Foreign Minister at the same table at the ASEAN Regional Forum when it is held in our region. They also have no problem sitting with the Myanmar Foreign Minister when ASEAN has its post-ministerial dialogue with the European Union after the ASEAN meeting. So they find this rather inconsistent. 5.45 pm Mr Simon Tay asked about the ARF. The ARF has actually come a fairly long way since it was established in 1994. It is the only regional forum that brings in all the major powers to discuss regional security issues. It has, over the past five years, managed to build up a certain comfort level and trust among its participants so much so that in recent sessions, even sensitive issues have been discussed. The 5th ARF in Manila, for example, saw a very candid exchange of views on regional security issues, including the impact of the financial crisis. There was also a candid exchange of views over the South-Asian nuclear tests. That these issues have now been discussed in a non-confrontational manner, to me, it is a sign of how the ARF has managed to increase and build up confidence among the participating countries. The key to ARF's future and resilience is, even though individual countries have different operating styles, it is ARF's adherence to the principles of consultation and consensus. I believe that the future of ARF is hinged on to the mindset of the countries in the forum. Hopefully, our constant interaction will inculcate habits of dialogue and cooperation instead of confrontation.”
“One is the ASEAN-European Commission Joint Cooperation Committee (JCC) which is really a technical meeting to review cooperation activities. The other meeting which has run into difficulties is ASEAN-EU Foreign Ministers Meeting which was to have been held back-to-back with the Asia-Europe Foreign Ministers Meeting in Berlin. The JCC, the technical meeting, was postponed twice due to a disagreement between ASEAN and EU over the format of Myanmar's participation, and both ASEAN and EU are now working towards reconvening the meeting. But the prospects of having the ASEAN-EU Foreign Ministers Meeting on 30th March in Berlin, I am afraid, appear rather dim at this stage. The main problem is that the European Union's common position is not to grant a visa to the Myanmar's Foreign Minister. The European Union would like Myanmar to be represented at a more junior level. But as the Foreign Ministers Meeting is a ministerial meeting at the Foreign Ministers' level, ASEAN's position is that all ASEAN Foreign Ministers will have to be present and treated equally. In other words, there should not be any discrimination on any ASEAN member's participation and it will be difficult for ASEAN to leave behind one member and the rest of us attend the meeting. It is unfortunate that some of the EU countries' bilateral difficulties with Myanmar on its internal human rights situation have jeopardised the long standing ASEAN-EU dialogue partnership. I say that because, over the past 22 years, ASEAN and EU have built well-entrenched institutional structures to facilitate broad based functional and economic cooperation. This well-established relationship is one that ASEAN continues to value. I hope that the EU could take into account the larger interests of the dialogue.”
“It is an important occasion for the Ministers to discuss how the ten countries will work together to strengthen ASEAN and its future. As chair of the ARF, we also want to see the habit of dialogue and consultation strengthened. I believe ARF plays an important role in building confidence among its countries in the region which contributes peace and stability. And I will say a few more words about ARF. I was asked whether Singapore can play a leadership role in opening new markets amongst ASEAN members. The new ASEAN countries actually understand, in my view, the importance of economic liberalization and the opening up of the economies. As members of ASEAN, they have committed themselves to participating in the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and ASEAN Investment Area (AIA). The participation will lead them to lower their barriers and encourage a free flow of trade in ASEAN. Singapore will work with the new ASEAN members to help them integrate into AFTA and also the global economy. Singapore can share with these countries our experience in economic development and familiarise them with measures that can improve the business conditions and investment climate. I think Singapore's regionalisation programme will also help. But in the final analysis, much will depend on the private sector. Of course, in seeking business opportunities in the new markets, the private sector will look for a business environment which is conducive to open trade and investments. I was asked about ASEAN-EU relations and how is it that problems have arisen. Dr Ong Chit Chung is right that ASEAN-EU dialogue has run into rough waters. In fact, it is at a standstill. Why is that so? It is because of the EU's difficulties over Myanmar's participation in two key meetings.”
“In my capacity as Chairman of ASEAN, I had discussed various proposals and got his agreement on the phone, particularly, when there were fast moving events like on Cambodia. That was a good illustration of how ASEAN works. Likewise, going back a few years back, when we had this bilateral problem with the Philippines over the case of Flor Contemplacion, it was clear that both of us did not want the issue to affect ASEAN, or ASEAN unity. In fact, Philippines and Singapore continued to cooperate on a wide variety of measures in ASEAN. Here, again, there was no problem in the Foreign Minister and myself being in frequent contact on the telephone. So I think ASEAN's strength is to be found in the habit of consultations, personal ties and a strong network of institutional links which were developed over a period of 30 years. We have come to a stage where we have discussed our problems honestly but quietly. ASEAN Foreign Ministers and officials continue to meet regularly despite the bilateral problems and I think the comfort levels are quite high. At the Hanoi Summit last year, ASEAN leaders, without exception, felt a strong sense of purpose to restore ASEAN standing and they adopted a forward looking Hanoi plan of action and Hanoi declaration. I was asked about the chairmanship of ASEAN standing committee. In that capacity, Singapore would have to work to ensure that ASEAN countries continue to work together to deal with the regional economic crisis. It is very likely that Cambodia will join ASEAN soon. So the Foreign Ministers Ministerial Meeting which Singapore would have to host in July this year will be the first time that all ten ASEAN Foreign Ministers will meet together.”
“Sir, I will respond to the comments made by Members on ASEAN-related issues and my colleague, the Minister of State, Dr Ow Chin Hock, will take up the comments made on Singapore-Thailand, Singapore-Hong Kong and Singapore-Australia relations. Several comments were made about ASEAN. We cannot deny that ASEAN is going through a very difficult period and the regional economic crisis has really affected all members of ASEAN. Some are experiencing internal political stresses and strains. There have been bilateral issues amongst two or more ASEAN countries. Members are right that outside observers have expressed all sorts of comments and prognosis for ASEAN and ASEAN's future directions. Because of these developments in the past year or so, it has led to perceptions that ASEAN is weakened or in a state of disarray. My view is that we should not deny that ASEAN is indeed going through a very testing period. On the other hand, to be balanced, I would not paint too gloomy and pessimistic a prognosis for ASEAN. Let me take the issue of bilateral relations problems between some ASEAN countries. Yes, it has happened. Malaysia and Singapore have had their problems and we are not the only ones. Some other countries have also had their bilateral spats and skirmishes. But let us get things in perspective. These problems have always existed and it is not the first time or last time that ASEAN will encounter such difficulties. ASEAN has weathered such storms before and fortunately emerged stronger. This is quite a remarkable thing about ASEAN. If I may quote two personal anecdotes from my experience. When relations with Malaysia were at times chilly and frosty, there was no problem in my picking up the phone and talking to the then Foreign Minister Badawi on a variety of matters.”
“Yes, we keep on trying, and we will not stop trying. In fact, these critics would want to change us to fit their ideas of what we ought to be. Unless we change, these critics will not be satisfied. But obviously we should not change ourselves just to oblige this small group of critics. Their views are not necessarily shared by a majority of Western policy-makers or Western public at large, as the Member has pointed out. Many people supported the actions we took. So I think we should not be too rattled by such criticisms. Of course, we should not blow our own trumpet. We have our policies which we think work for us and where they work for us, we will continue to pursue these policies. Where they do not work, obviously we will re-examine our policies and decisions, and adjust. We do not insist that what we do is right for the rest of the world and we do not seek to impose our policies on the others. So we have to be very clear of this perspective when we deal with the comment made by the Member on correcting international perception of Singapore.”
“We have encouraged our overseas missions to publish their home pages so that they can be more effective in their own way to reach out to the audiences in their countries. So far, our missions in Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, New York and Paris have launched their own home pages. London and Shanghai will have theirs later in the month. In financial year 1999, my Ministry will launch another 11 websites for all our overseas missions. In addition to that, our embassies also issue newsletters, and so on. So these things are being done. But having said that, I think we need to have a proper perspective in addressing the question of perception or misperception, as mentioned by the Member. I would say that Singapore's general international image is not really negative. It is, in fact, positive. In recent weeks and months, in fact, many stories were written in well-known reputed newspapers about the way in which Singapore had handled its own economy in the midst of the regional financial crisis. What we have done has been noted. Of course, from time to time, negative stories about Singapore will appear in the international media. When these negative stories are based on misunderstanding or inaccurate information, our overseas missions proactively and robustly will correct such misperceptions. But at the end of the day, I think the crux of the problem is not lack of information or inaccurate information. Because there is always a small group of critics or foreign media that is ideologically uncomfortable with Singapore. We have to face this, because we do not fit their preconceptions of what a successful developing country should be. So no amount of dissemination of accurate information or effort at correcting them is going to change their mindset.”
“Wherever there are large concentrations of Singaporeans, we also put in place a warden system to facilitate speedy communications among Singaporeans, especially during emergency situations, such as civil disturbances or natural disasters. Under the warden system, Singaporeans are organised into groupings based on their geographical localities with wardens or leaders appointed for each group. This system proves very effective in Cambodia when over 400 Singaporeans were successfully evacuated. We also activated the warden system for evacuating some 2,000 Singaporeans who were flown back from Indonesia with the cooperation of SIA at that time. On Mr Chuang's point on international perception of Singapore, I take Mr Chuang's point that MFA and its overseas missions should do as much as possible (a) to counter negative perceptions, unfounded allegations and criticisms about Singapore; and (b) to be proactively promoting a positive image about Singapore. In fact, this is one of the key functions of our missions abroad. But as he himself has noted, Singapore is a small country. We have less than 30 resident embassies throughout the world. But every one of our embassies knows the critical importance of doing this. 5.15 pm He has also talked about the use of the Internet. I agree with him on the growing importance of the Internet and its usefulness as a tool to explain our policies to Singaporeans and foreigners. And MFA, in fact, has recognised the need to provide the latest information to an ever more discerning public through this media. He may not know that, in fact, MFA has revamped its home page last June providing for more timely release of our press statements, speeches, and so forth. The site is now more user-friendly and averages over 200,000 hits every month.”
“Mr Zulkifli touched on the importance of working relations between different agencies. Let me say that, in the meantime, the working relationship between Singapore Government agencies and their Indonesian counterparts have not been affected by the changes taking place there. Cooperation in various fields, I am glad to say, is still going on. For instance, my Ministry has continued to work closely with DEPLU, which is their Indonesian Foreign Ministry, both bilaterally and at the various international fora. I would therefore like to reaffirm that the Singapore Government is prepared to work with whoever becomes President of Indonesia and forms the next government. We will establish rational and stable long-term relations with Indonesia as we have done in the past 30 years, a relationship based on mutual respect and equality between two independent countries. I believe Dr Ong Chit Chung touched on the assistance given to Singaporeans caught in the crisis. As a result of that, he asked what is the nature of assistance which Singapore MFA can give. I thank him for what he has said about MFA. It was a combined effort between MFA and various other Government agencies. But in answer to what else can be done, let me say that one of MFA's primary roles is to provide advice and assist overseas Singaporeans when they are in trouble abroad, or they need our support and information. This is quite true, particularly as Dr Ong mentioned, when more and more Singaporeans are travelling and residing overseas, either due to their own efforts or because of our own regionalisation efforts. Let me say that all our overseas missions have contingency plans to meet various exigencies.”
“Sir, I think it is pointless for me to give a detailed rebuttal of all the various allegations that have been made in an off-hand manner without any supporting facts to these allegations. Let me, however, restate that Singapore has a vested interest in Indonesia's stability, growth and prosperity. Indonesia is a close neighbour and a major trading partner. As Mr Rai mentioned, an Indonesian setback would hurt its neighbours, including Singapore. On these criticisms, I can do no better than to refer to the speech made by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew on 20th February 1999 as well as Prime Minister Goh's comments made in Australia recently. Senior Minister Lee said: "As the internal situations of the crisis-hit countries worsened, there have been more accusations and threats against Singapore. When countries are under pressure, their leaders say and do things that they normally would not. We must expect more of this." In the run-up to the Indonesian parliamentary elections in June 1999, and the Presidential elections later this year, we can expect more allegations to be directed against us. But we have to avoid being drawn into their politics. As Prime Minister Goh said, we should say the minimum so as to avoid giving any provocation. Singapore would try to avoid being a party in Indonesia's domestic elections. Sir, we hope that Indonesia will succeed in overcoming its challenges to restore political certainty and confidence. Stability in Indonesia will be the key factor. In this regard, the outcome of the coming elections in Indonesia will be critical. It is important that the elections be seen to be free and fair. Otherwise, it may prolong the political instability and the loss of investor confidence.”
“Since the economic crisis had caused hardships for the people of Indonesia, Members know that Singapore announced in July last year our humanitarian assistance package in the form of rice and medicines. Another phase of the humanitarian assistance under this package will be launched soon. I note what Mr Sin Boon Ann has said, but since the current package of humanitarian assistance is not over, we will have to assess this matter later. Sir, the current difficulties in Indonesia have not stopped us from investing in Indonesia. In January 1999, both countries signed an agreement for the gas project in the West Natunas which is expected to generate revenues of about US$8 billion for Indonesia. This project reflects the strong commitment from Singapore to work together with Indonesia in economic cooperation amidst the on-going crisis. But as with our other efforts to be of help, Singapore can act as a catalyst to bring back foreign investments into Indonesia when the position is stabilised. We can co-invest with big MNCs in their industrial and agricultural sector. By ourselves, we cannot make a significant difference. But getting big MNCs to accompany us can be useful in restarting the flow of investments. Sir, Indonesia is undergoing a political transformation. It has to overcome deep economic, social and political problems on its road to recovery. Eventually, they will restore political stability and confidence. But along the way, we have to expect stresses and strains that will affect bilateral relations. Members have indeed commented the fact that relations between Singapore and Indonesia are going through a difficult period. Various Indonesian leaders and officials have made allegations and negative comments against Singapore.”
“Not only do I agree with him, it is important to stress that in diplomacy and the conduct of foreign policy, the promotion of bilateral relations is not the sole responsibility and preserve of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Prime Ministers or Foreign Ministers. Other officials, private sector, NGOs and civic groups also can supplement the work of the Government agencies. He mentioned re-establishing sports and cultural links, but these have always existed. The point I want to make is that Singapore, on its part, has not made any move to stop these links. If I may now go on to the points made by colleagues on Indonesia. Sir, last year on 1st June 1998, I informed Members that though Indonesia is in political transition, Singapore will continue to work with Indonesia, both bilaterally and within ASEAN, to further strengthen relations to the benefit of both countries. Several Members have already pointed out that Singapore is a small country with limited means. I believe Mr Zulkifli underscored that point. We have limited means to resolve the magnitude of the needs of Indonesians in the political and economic crisis. When the crisis started, we sought the support of Indonesia's major trading partners for a Multilateral Trade Finance Guarantee Scheme because we knew that we were not able to do it alone. As most of these countries preferred to have their own bilateral schemes, we did not pursue the proposal further. When Indonesia pressed us, Singapore subsequently offered its own Bilateral Trade Financing Guarantee Scheme with diffidence because we did not have the expertise in this area. The Indonesians found our scheme too cautious.”
“As I have said, we are glad to have put the legal issues behind us and have moved on to the negotiations on the package of outstanding issues. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 5.00 pm A question was asked about the time frame and whether we should give a deadline. I agree with the Member that a package which involves so many issues and of such magnitude obviously cannot be rushed. But I also think he is right that if both sides are earnest, then it should not drag on indefinitely. He is right. But I believe that the officials are fully aware of this fact and they know that the two Prime Ministers expect them to achieve early progress in their talks. Mr Charles Chong asked how do we ensure that these agreements, when they are reached as a result of the package, will be respected and they will be binding international agreements with full force of validity and status in international law, and will be governed by international law. He will recall that the Prime Minister has told the House that when we spoke about loan and water arrangements, he would bring it to Parliament. I know that it is the Prime Minister's intention that the agreements, as a result of the package negotiations, would also be brought to this House. I assume that this will be done likewise in Malaysia. Mr Zulkifli Baharudin made some useful suggestions about promoting bilateral relations and, as a general principle, one would find it very difficult to disagree with him. I agree with him that civic organisations and NGOs have an important role to play.”
“And if the package deal does not produce results on the extension of the water agreements, the water agreements will continue to remain valid until their expiry dates. I thought I should make that clear. Similarly, I think Mr Charles Chong and one or two other Members also asked about the CIQ. Likewise, the Government's position, as I stated in the House on the status of the CIQ, remains unchanged. Members will recall that I explained in great length why Malaysia's CIQ could not remain in Tanjong Pagar after we had moved to Woodlands. I also explained that when Singapore's CIQ moved to Woodlands, the administrative arrangements and the legal cover for Malaysia to exercise CIQ functions in Tanjong Pagar ceased. Also, I mentioned serious problems which might be created concerning the improper sequence of immigration clearance, especially if passports were endorsed at Tanjong Pagar. However, because Malaysia at that time claimed a legal right for its customs to remain in Tanjong Pagar, we agreed, as an interim measure, to allow Malaysian customs to operate at Tanjong Pagar pending a resolution of its claim by its Singapore customs officers lending cover of legal authority. Here, again in line with the agreement between the two Prime Ministers in Hanoi to resolve the CIQ issue as part of the package of bilateral issues, Prime Minister Goh had said also that it is prepared to consider the question of the possible location of the Malaysian CIQ in Singapore provided that there is an overall package agreement. However, at that time, he said we must settle the issue of sovereignty and Malaysia's claim of a legal right before proceeding to the negotiations.”
“But I hope they will appreciate that as the negotiations are still in progress, I am not in a position at this stage to disclose the details of the discussions on any of the specific items. We are negotiating to arrive at a mutually beneficial outcome. As Prime Minister Goh said in his National Day Rally Speech last year, "both sides have much to gain by pragmatic win-win cooperation." Mr Charles Chong raised the question about the status of the POA. And as a result of what he has said, I should make it clear so that Members would not misunderstand. The fact that we are having these discussions on the package does not mean that agreements that have been validly entered into and which are binding have somehow lost their legal force. That is not so. As I have told the House before, the POA is a legally binding agreement and came into force immediately after it was signed between the then PM, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and Malaysian Finance Minister Tun Daim Zainudin in 1990. However, Prime Minister Goh has said that the Singapore Government is prepared to consider Malaysia's proposals to have supplementary agreements on the POA, but only in the context of a wider framework or wider package with Malaysia that includes Malaysia selling water to Singapore on a long term basis. Therefore, the decision to discuss the POA as part of the package of bilateral issues does not in any way affect the legal status of the POA. Let me give an analogy. The bilateral discussions on the package include our request for extension of the 1961 and 1962 water agreements. The fact that the extension of the water agreements is being discussed does not mean that the two agreements are in any way suspended.”
“Together with the Foreign Minister Dato Seri Syed Hamid's public statements that Malaysia had never questioned Singapore's sovereignty over its own territory, the paper met our concerns over the sovereignty and other legal issues pertaining to Malaysia's CIQ operations in Singapore. We replied to Malaysia on 18th February 1999 that Singapore's conclusion, after studying the Malaysian paper, was that the Malaysian government did not claim to have a legal right to operate its customs and immigration facilities in Singapore; that it acknowledged that these operations in Singapore were by Singapore's agreement and consent; and that it acknowledged Singapore's sovereignty over Tanjong Pagar and Woodlands. We informed them that, on the basis of that understanding, Singapore was ready to proceed with the negotiations on the package of outstanding issues, as agreed by the two Prime Ministers in Hanoi. In this connection, we invited them to suggest dates to begin the negotiations on the package. Subsequently, in response, the Secretary-General of Malaysia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs proposed to my Permanent Secretary that senior officials meet in Singapore on 11th March to discuss the package. As our understanding of Malaysia's position was not disputed, we accepted Malaysia's proposal. Accordingly, the first meeting between officials took place last week on 11th March. At this first meeting, both sides have got down to detailed discussions on the items in the package. They have agreed to meet again in April. I realise that several Members who have spoken are anxiously expecting me to give a lot of details about what has happened in that one day's discussions.”
“At their last meeting in Hanoi in December 1998, Dr Mahathir said that Malaysia no longer needed financial assistance from Singapore. This has been reported. Instead, Dr Mahathir proposed that Singapore and Malaysia could begin to discuss all outstanding bilateral issues, including the long-term supply of water to Singapore, within an overall package. Prime Minister Goh agreed to it but he made it clear that Malaysia still had to submit its legal arguments on the CIQ facilities first, before both sides could begin negotiations on the package. Both Prime Ministers then agreed that the package would include issues like the withdrawal of West Malaysian CPF funds, the long-term supply of water to Singapore, KTMB land in Singapore, the RSAF's use of Malaysian airspace and the location of Malaysia's CIQ facilities. As I told this House on 20th January this year, we had informed the Malaysians that before we could proceed to the negotiations on the package, Malaysia would have to recognise Singapore's sovereignty and not claim that it had a legal right to operate its CIQ in Singapore. We had also informed them that if Malaysia did not produce its written legal arguments in a month's time from 20th January, Singapore would assume that Malaysia no longer wished to pursue its legal claim to remain at Tanjong Pagar. On 10th February 1999, we received a paper from Malaysia which clarified their position on certain issues. In their paper, Malaysia did not claim a legal right to operate its customs and immigration facilities in Singapore.”
“We ran into a rough patch with the CIQ issue in July 1998, when we rejected Malaysia's claim to any legal right to locate its CIQ facilities in Tanjong Pagar. In July last year, I briefed the House at length on the background to the issue, and subsequently updated the House on fresh developments in October 1998 and January 1999. I will refer to this matter later. In September, following the furore in Malaysia over the launch of Senior Minister's memoirs, Malaysia, without prior notification, unilaterally revoked RSAF's access to Malaysian airspace given under earlier agreements. Sir, as I have said before, Singapore and Malaysia are really bound by a multiplicity of complex ties, a point which more than one Member underscored. Therefore, any such close relationship inevitably must go through different phases. Therefore, we must expect ups and downs from time to time. As two countries which are so close to each other, we compete as well as cooperate to advance our national interests. But what is important is that we do not lose sight of the central fact of our interdependence. Singapore, on its part, is committed to forging a long-term mutually beneficial relationship with Malaysia, and we will manage bilateral ties on the basis of reciprocity and mutual respect for each other's interests. And this point about mutuality and reciprocity was also alluded to by other Members. Sir, bilateral relations improved following the meetings between Prime Minister Goh and Dr Mahathir in November and December last year. At that time, both Prime Ministers were working towards concluding a mutually beneficial water agreement in return for our financial assistance to Malaysia under a framework of wider cooperation.”
“In this regard, the recent decision to resume the scheduled FPDA exercises is a positive development. If I were to sum up, Sir, there are tentative signs of economic recovery, but developments in the region remain in a state of flux. It is difficult to predict how the region's political equilibrium and security environment will eventually take shape, although the US-China-Japan triangular relationship will likely be stable in the near term. But we have to be alert to emerging and changing trends in the region, and to act in ways to best secure our national interests. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked how Singapore can position itself. We are a small country, but Singapore continues to do what we can. As Chairman of the ASEAN Standing Committee, our objective will be to keep ASEAN together and to ensure it maintains a steady course in difficult times. We will also play a role together with other members in forums such as the ASEAN Regional Forum, Asia-Europe Meetings as well as ASEAN dialogue relationships with China, US and Japan to ensure that these key countries continue to place importance in the dialogue relationship as well as their involvement and engagement in the region. Sir, can I now go on to comments made by colleagues on Malaysia-Singapore relations? This House last discussed Malaysia-Singapore relations on 29th June 1998. At that time, I updated the House on the progress of the various items under the Joint Communique issued after Prime Minister Goh's visit to Kuala Lumpur in February last year. At that time, I reiterated that we were committed to forging a long-term relationship of mutual benefit with Malaysia. As Members have noted, since then our relations with Malaysia have seen many ups and downs.”
“First, cross-strait atmospherics improved with the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Khoo Chen-fu's visit to China last October. The scheduled visit to Taiwan of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan's Straits (ARATS) Chairman could lay the path for further progress in cross-Strait relations. The nuclear tests in the Indian sub-continent in May 1998 are a reminder to all of us that balance of powers, even outside the major ones, remains a delicate issue. The recent summit between the two Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan can be seen as an encouraging sign of rapprochement. The situation in North Korea continues to be a very real potential flashpoint. Members also referred to the territorial disputes in the South China Sea. Singapore is not a claimant state. But the recent Mischief Reef incident is the latest in a string of such less-than-friendly encounters between the claimant states. It highlights the need to maintain safe passage through the major sea-lanes in the region. Freedom of navigation and access to sea-lanes is crucial, not only for economic development but also for a stable security environment in the region. The Mischief Reef incident has also demonstrated the importance of resolving disputes through peaceful means and substantive progress towards resolving contentious issues, of course, will take time, but the atmosphere of discussions has at least improved markedly. In any case in reply to the Chairman of the GPC, these uncertainties underscore the importance of a continued United States' presence in the region. Singapore also regards the Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA) as an important component of the regional security architecture.”
“It is in Singapore's interest to have the three major players constructively engaged and their triangular relationship strengthened. This will ensure a stable and peaceful balance of power in the region. As Members know, Singapore has reiterated the importance of continued US presence in the region, especially during the present difficult times. Internal domestic changes in each of the powers, including China, we believe, will have an impact on their relations with each other and the triangular relationship as a whole. A China that lapses into serious trouble, because of an inability to cope with internal economic and social problems, obviously will drastically alter the regional strategic landscape. An unstable China is not in the interest of the other major powers nor the region as a whole. Japan is undergoing major long-term economic and structural reforms and her efforts should be recognised, although the results will take time to show. As for the US, notwithstanding a foreign policy increasingly subject to the stresses and strains of domestic political considerations, the US must show global leadership. Dr Ong Chit Chung also mentioned about Europe. Singapore welcomes a stronger European engagement in the region. We believe that Europe should complement its economic involvement in the region with a greater strategic presence. This will help to promote regional stability and security and assist in Asia's economic recovery. I might add that at the end of this month, Asian Foreign Ministers will be meeting European Foreign Ministers in the Asia-Europe Foreign Ministers' meeting to be held in Berlin and we expect a good discussion to take place at that time. 4.45 pm Let me touch on the other aspects of the strategic situation in Asia.”
“Following President Jiang Zemin's visit to the US in November 1997, and President Clinton's return visit in June 1998, this demonstrated the United States' commitment to constructively engage China. But there are now signs of traditional problems resurfacing. These include United States' concerns over China's human rights record, the widening trade deficit, and the transfer of sensitive technology. Underlying differences have once again been brought to the fore. We hope that there would not be a downturn in US-China relations as had happened in 1996. Because that certainly would not be in the interest of either party, and it would not be in the interest of the region as a whole. We hope that United States-China relations can settle on a more even keel after Premier Zhu Rongji's visit to the United States next month. On United States-Japan relations, the United States sought closer ties with China, there was a perception that United States-Japan relations suffered a slide. Japan, some analysts said, was concerned that the warming of US-China ties could undermine the US-Japan Security Alliance. However, following President Clinton's visit to Japan in November 1998, it restored relations to an even keel. Notwithstanding friction in economic and trade issues, the US-Japan relationship remains the most stable leg in the triangular relationship. China-Japan relations is the other part of the triangular relationship. China remains high on Japan's foreign policy agenda. President Jiang Zemin made an historic state visit to Japan in November 1998, the first by a Chinese Head of State. However, it will take time for the two countries to completely overcome traditional mutual suspicions and to forge a closer relationship.”
“Sir, I wish to first reply to the colleagues who have spoken on the strategic situation in Asia, then I will comment on the relations with Malaysia and Indonesia, respond to comments made on international perception by Mr Chuang. First, two Members asked about the strategic situation in our region. I will start off first by saying that there is no doubt that the economic crisis has altered the regional strategic landscape. Many economies have been devastated, triggering off political instability in several countries. In this situation, we in Singapore have to be alert to possible instability in the region and be prepared for political upheaval. In Indonesia, the political and social situation continues to be uncertain. What happens there undoubtedly will have a significant impact on regional stability, as several Members mentioned. Having said that, let me also say that the prognosis is not entirely gloomy. And I think there is some basis for cautious optimism when we look at the strategic picture as a whole. The fundamentals and infrastructure that made possible three decades of growth are still there. As far as the triangular relationship between United States, China and Japan is concerned, we can say that this remains fairly stable. If it were not so, the situation can be worse. Stability in the triangular relationship will continue to provide the basic foundation for peace and security in the region. Asia's recovery will in fact depend on this relationship holding. On the United States-China relations, which is an important part of this triangular relationship, in the first half of 1998, we saw that it was stabilising at a comfortable pace.”
“If implemented, it could mean that members of the public will be able to browse through any Act at the nearest branch of the National Library. Another option we are considering is whether the information kiosk (Nets kiosk) which is currently stationed at the Supreme Court can be upgraded to provide free access to statutes database for visiting members of the public. Being a lawyer, Dr Toh See Kiat will know that reading a statute on its own will not provide a full understanding of the law for non-lawyers. So I should make that note of caution here. It may be necessary to read books and other materials such as the Law Society's and CASE's own brochures explaining the law to non-lawyers.”
“The Ministry of Law and the Registrar of Land Titles, will have another look at this area and to see if indeed it is a hindrance to businessmen, and if so whether we can review it to make it less onerous. Dr Toh See Kiat's point, firstly, was on putting our statutes and information on-line. I believe he knows that we have the LawNet Legal Workbench Seminar where we announced that Internet statutes would now be on-line. His point was that we should also make this available, free of charge, or at low cost, to members of the public. He will be glad to know that, in fact, LawNet was among some of the more popular statutes on the website for free access by members of the public. What these specifically will be, I will have to inform him separately. But he gave some suggestions as to what these statutes will be. This will be taken into account. As to whether it can be completely free of charge, I should say that the Government has actually invested substantial funds to develop LawNet. The maintenance and recurrent expenditure of LawNet is undertaken by the Singapore Academy of Law on a self-financing basis. Therefore, law firms have to pay monthly subscriptions for LawNet to gain timely access to these laws, including statutes and subsidiary legislation. So it is necessary to charge a subscription fee to maintain and support the system. But having said that, let me add that the Attorney-General and the LawNet Management Committee will explore ways to see how free access to our statutes can be given to members of the public without jeopardising the viability of LawNet, whether we could have specific databases at the National Library, in the university and elsewhere.”
“In other words, Sir, in reply to Mr Davinder Singh and other Members who have spoken, we will constantly update our laws and develop our legal expertise to ensure that our legal infrastructure would be better placed to support Singapore's drive towards a knowledge-based economy and to meet new challenges. Sir, on bankruptcy legislation, let me say that Singapore laws and policies, in fact, have received high marks in international ratings. But we constantly review our bankruptcy laws and practices. When moving the amendments to the Bankruptcy legislation in 1994, I informed this House that our main objective was to encourage entrepreneurship where bankrupts, who have become so through misfortune rather than malpractice, will be subjected to a more practical and pragmatic regime of bankruptcy. This approach, in our view, helps to encourage entrepreneurship. But even this area of the law is under review, and I am glad to say that the Official Assignee has proposed, and I have approved, that the cap of $250,000 to discharge bankrupts will be increased to $500,000 and will take effect on 1st May 1999. Furthermore, under the current drive to promote technopreneurship, the Ministry of Law is also leading a study to see what else can be done to improve not only our insolvency laws, but other rules and regulations governing businesses. This includes the many points which Mr Chng Hee Kok referred to. On the specific point that Mr Chng Hee Kok referred to the provision of 7-year leases, in fact, in 1998 we further liberalised it, from seven years to 14 years. But his point was whether such requirements are an unnecessary impediment to businessmen. I take his point.”
“Their proposal will allow eventually for the formation of multi-disciplinary "one-stop" professional corporations as well as encourage acquisition by our local law corporations of foreign law expertise. In order to protect the interests of clients, the report also recommends that it should be made compulsory for law corporations to take out a minimum of $2 million professional indemnity insurance. Other safeguards have also been proposed to ensure that high standards of professional competence and integrity are maintained. I would like to say that I have asked the Attorney-General and the officials in the Ministry of Law to study the report with a view to implementing its provisions and, where necessary, to enact the necessary legislation. Mr Davinder Singh asked about the list of scheduled universities. Members will recall, when I last spoke on this subject, I said that the list of universities is not fixed for all time. We will have to review it from time to time because standards and curriculum will change, and I gave an undertaking that we will constantly review it. We are now in the process of looking at the list of 15 universities in the light of our experience in the past five years. But, in addition, we will also consider whether to include additional universities and whether well-reputed universities in other Commonwealth universities and other jurisdictions should also be considered. I might also mention here that the Attorney-General has informed me that the Board of Legal Education will review the curriculum for the Practical Law Course as well as the institution of the pupilage and the need for a formal system of Continuing Legal Education for those in practice.”
“We are also looking into the following areas of law: (1) A new proposed regime for the creation and registration of personal property securities; (2) We are reviewing the law on the formalities required for the execution of deeds by individuals and corporations; (3) We are reviewing the application of consumer protection laws in cyber space; the point made by Dr Toh See Kiat; (4) We are also monitoring international developments in e-commerce and reviewing the Electronic Transactions Act in the light of experience gained in implementing such legislation; (5) We will also review the Arbitration Act to update it and make it consistent with the International Arbitration Act; and (6) The laws of evidence, including the hearsay evidence rule, will also be looked at with a view to reforming and modernising these rules. Mr Davinder Singh made a valid point about the Criminal Procedure Code. The Criminal Procedure Code, together with the Penal Code, are legislation which has been in our books for many years. They have quite a history behind them, borrowing on provisions in India and elsewhere. We have not left it on the shelf without further review and there are inter-agency committees reviewing both the Penal Code as well as the Criminal Procedure Code, and the point made by Mr Davinder Singh will be taken into account. I expect that the recommendations on the Penal Code may enable us to come out with legislation in the course of the middle of this year. Mr Davinder Singh talked about corporatisation and whether the Report has come in. Indeed, the Sub-Committee of the Law Reform Commission has submitted its report. Amongst other things, it recommends that law firms be allowed to corporatise in order to encourage growth and to enable our lawyers to compete more efficiently.”
“A point raised by Mr Chng Hee Kok and, to some extent, by Mr Davinder Singh is that in order to encourage technopreneurship and business enterprise, we should also increase our efforts to promote and develop intellectual assets and to make our people understand the importance of intellectual property rights. In fact, as far as legislation is concerned, in the past year, considerable progress has been made. And Mr Chng Hee Kok will remember that we have made amendments to the Patents Act, the Copyright Act, the new Trade Marks Act which was passed last year, which has not only modernised and simplified our Trade Marks law in line with international trends, but also enables us to comply with the TRIPS Agreement. More recently, of course, we have also passed the Geographical Indications Act 1998, the Layout-Designs Integrated Circuits Act 1999, which will further improve our laws on protection of intellectual property rights. These laws will create a conducive environment for innovation and commercialisation of technologies. I should also say that a draft Designs Bill is also under consideration. And when passed, Singaporean enterprises would no longer need to rely on the United Kingdom to seek protection of their industrial designs. It will also encourage local innovations and new ideas in industrial designs. 4.30 pm Mr Davinder Singh, Dr Toh See Kiat and Mr Chng Kee Kok made a common point that we must constantly update and review our various laws to enable the competitiveness edge to be maintained. Let me say that we support this objective.”
“Sir, I wish to thank the Members who have spoken and let me respond. I will first take Mr Davinder Singh's broader question about the need to review our laws in the light of enhancing our competitiveness. Sir, I do not think there is any doubt that the legal infrastructure - and by that I mean our legal institutions, our laws, procedures and regulations - will increasingly play an important role in our economic development. Our policy therefore should be to take a proactive role in ensuring that our laws, legal institutions and legal framework are constantly updated to support national objectives. On Mr Davinder Singh's specific question on our laws to support reform in the financial sector, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Attorney-General's Chambers are in fact now reviewing the necessity to amend legislation such as the Banking Act, which was referred to by Mr Davinder Singh, the Securities Industry Act, the Futures Trading Act, the Insurance Act, the MAS Act and the Companies Act. This may need to be done in phases as we will have to consult the various agencies as well as the industry and professions involved. The AG's Chambers has in fact expanded its Legislation Division to cope with the increasing drafting work. Together with the Ministry of Finance, the Attorney-General has also undertaken a major review of the Companies Act, which began last year with the share buy-back scheme. I believe this review will bring the Act up to date with international developments.”
“The Member's point is taken. But as I said, it is a private sector proposal. The Malaysian Government has not made a formal proposal to us. I do not think this calls for a protest. But of course we wish that Singapore is kept informed of such a proposal if the Malaysian Government does in fact support this proposal. RELEASE OF LAND SALES FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT 4. Mr Inderjit Singh asked the Minister for National Development if he will consider releasing land sales for private property development since property prices have stabilised in the last few months.”
“The answer to the question is no. The proposal to replace the Causeway with a bridge is actually not part of the package of bilateral issues that Singapore and Malaysian officials have discussed. In fact, this proposal is not new, nor has it been raised officially. There were press reports, I believe, in 1996 to which Prime Minister Goh as well as my Ministry responded. But these reports resurfaced recently in a number of Malaysian press reports that a consortium called Gerbang Perdana had secured in-principle approval to construct a bridge to replace the Causeway. The Ministry of National Development issued a press statement on 18th December which reiterated that the Singapore Government had not received any official proposal from the Malaysian Government on the development of a new bridge to replace the Causeway. Only when the Singapore Government has received such a proposal and is able to evaluate it, would we be able to comment on it further? Sir, let me say again that any proposal to build a bridge must be agreed to by the two governments. When the Singapore Government receives a serious proposal from the Malaysian Government, we will study it and do a cost benefit analysis.”
“Do I understand the Member's question to be whether the package of issues includes the proposal of a bridge? Dr Lily Neo: Yes.”
“As I said, the text of the Special Agreement has been agreed upon. So the basic problem has been overcome. What has to happen now are procedural requirements, such as formal signing ceremony and ratification, after which it will be referred to the International Court of Justice. These procedural steps will be implemented in due course.”
“Pedra Branca is not among the issues which the two Prime Ministers, in their meeting in Hanoi on 17th December 1998, agreed should be settled as a package of outstanding bilateral issues. This is because, as I informed Parliament on 29th June 1998, officials from Singapore and Malaysia on 14th April 1998 had already reached the agreement on the text of a Special Agreement to refer Malaysia's claim to Pedra Branca to the International Court of Justice.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I answer this question on behalf of the Prime Minister?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, on a technical matter of referring the matter to the International Court of Justice, on this procedural point, it requires two countries to agree to refer a matter to the International Court of Justice. But we have not reached that stage. We will reach that stage only when we see their position. If they insist that they still have a legal right, then, as I mentioned in Parliament on 31st July last year, if they send their legal arguments, we have said that the two Attorneys-General and officials, the legal experts, will sit down and meet first and see whether it can be hammered out and resolved by a meeting of the legal experts. If they cannot resolve the issue, then we have to discuss subsequent steps and settle it by reference to judicial records in Singapore. But these are to prejudge what is going to happen. Let us first see what is the position of Malaysia. PEDRA BRANCA (Review of outstanding issues with Malaysia) 3. Mr Zulkifli bin Baharudin asked the Prime Minister whether the proposal to review all the outstanding bilateral issues with Malaysia includes the issues of Pedra Branca.”
“On the second part of the question, if they move to the slowest common denominator, then conclusion of the framework of wider cooperation, which the Prime Minister has talked about several times in this House and to which we have committed, will be that much more time-consuming. But again I would not like to assume that it will proceed on the "slowest common denominator". We have to take the position, as both the Prime Ministers explained to the press, that both want to solve the package as early as possible. They have said that they are prepared to start the discussion on the package at the officials level soon after Hari Raya Aidilfitri. We have said that we welcome that. But, first, the question of the legal issue and the question of sovereignty have to be resolved and put behind us. In answer to the first part of the Member's question, if that issue is not resolved, obviously we cannot proceed to the package of issues negotiations because it will not be productive. There will always be a question mark over the CIQ issue. Are we negotiating the CIQ issue on the basis of their inherent legal right? Will they claim it in future? If they claim it in future, it will mean that we have not resolved it. So it has to be resolved. It has to be put behind us. That is why this basic legal issue has to be resolved.”