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 21 of 66.
“But we had not reached agreement on a formal Water Agreement. We will continue discussions with the Malaysians when they are ready. Sir, the region is in the grips of an economic crisis. Both Singapore and Malaysia are affected. In times of difficulties, both countries should enhance their cooperation and minimize the areas of disagreements. The two Prime Ministers have discussed financial cooperation but no agreement has yet been reached on specific measures of cooperation. Other issues which have been discussed include the outstanding matters relating to the Points of Agreement (POA) on Malayan Railway Land in Singapore and withdrawal conditions for West Malaysians' CPF savings. Minister Lee Boon Yang told this House on 1st June 1998 that the CPF withdrawal conditions can be settled in the context of a broader cooperation package between Malaysia and Singapore. This remains our position. We have not yet reached agreement on such a broader package of cooperation which would include the long-term supply of water to Singapore. If this can be agreed, there is considerable potential for mutually beneficial cooperation in a wide variety of areas. This would include the development of the Malayan Railway Land at Bukit Timah which is not covered by the Points of Agreement. Members will recall that the Prime Minister made this point when he spoke about the framework of wider cooperation in this House on 5th June 1997. Sir, at today's sitting, Minister for Finance, Dr Richard Hu, will move the Second Reading of the Customs (Amendment) Bill. This amendment has to do with the shifting of Singapore's Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) facilities from the railway station at Tanjong Pagar to the new facilities at the train checkpoint in Woodlands on 1st August 1998.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I last informed this House about Malaysia-Singapore relations during our sitting on 13th March 1998. On that occasion, Members will recall that I ran through the various items mentioned in the Joint Communique issued after our Prime Minister's visit to Kuala Lumpur in February 1998. I told the House that there had been progress in bilateral relations, but I also cautioned that several outstanding issues remained unresolved. This remains the situation. On Pedra Branca, on 14th April 1998, officials from both sides finalised the text of a Special Agreement to refer Malaysia's claim to Pedra Branca to the International Court of Justice. This is a positive development which brings the Pedra Branca dispute one step closer towards resolution. However, there has been less progress on other issues such as the long-term supply of water to Singapore and the development of Malayan Railway Land. On water, the Joint Communique issued in February 1998 contained a general undertaking that Malaysia would continue the supply of water to Singapore beyond the expiry dates of the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements. This was to have been confirmed in a formal Water Agreement within sixty days from the issuance of the Joint Communique. However, both sides have not been able to meet the deadline. What Singapore seeks is not just a general undertaking but a formal, legally binding, Water Agreement which sets out clearly the terms and conditions for the supply of water after the present Water Agreements run out in 2011 and 2061 respectively. This will avoid future disagreements after the present leaderships in both Singapore and Malaysia are no longer around. There had been several rounds of negotiations before the deadline.”
“The Singapore Judiciary and judicial system have consistently received high ratings in eminent international surveys which affirm the independence of the judiciary. The Government has stated that it is regrettable that the US State Department Report on Human Rights Practices persisted in making unsubstantiated and unwarranted allegations despite the facts being repeatedly drawn to its attention. It has requested the errors of fact and wrongful allegations be brought to the attention of the authors of the Report. REVENUE LOSS ON INTRODUCTION OF GST 4. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide the details on how the figure of $8.2 billion in total revenue loss to the Government on introducing GST for the period FY94-FY97 is arrived at.”
“The Government has given a detailed response to the 1997 US State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices through an Aide Memoire, which was conveyed to the Embassy of the United States of America on 30th March 1998. The Aide Memoire drew the attention of the Embassy to the errors of fact and misleading allegations contained in the Report. It emphasised that the Singapore Government does not condone human rights abuse and takes a serious view of any allegation of human rights abuse in Singapore. The Aide Memoire expressed the Government's surprise and regret that the 1997 Report has repeated old allegations that the Government has used libel suits to intimidate the opposition and questioned the independence of the judiciary in Singapore. The Government rejected these unfounded allegations. It has consistently pointed out that libel and defamation are taken very seriously in Singapore. If the integrity of its political leaders or key institutions is questioned, Singapore leaders will not hesitate to clear their names and protect these institutions through due process of law. Legal action against libel and defamation is an established part of Singapore's political culture that seeks to maintain a high standard of truth and honesty in politics. It is absurd to claim that the opposition in Singapore has not been able to challenge the dominance of the PAP because it has been intimidated by the threat of libel suits. Opposition leaders have themselves never hesitated to sue in the courts to clear their names when they believed they were defamed. In some cases, they have succeeded. The allegations against the Singapore Judiciary are also completely unfounded.”
“Let me conclude by reiterating what I said during the Second Reading of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, ie that Singapore is fully committed to the protection of intellectual property rights. It is clearly in our interests to do so because our maturing economy will increasingly rely on attracting knowledge-intensive industries to invest here and on encouraging the development of such industries locally. We will monitor the situation, continue with our current efforts and introduce new measures if necessary. RESTRICTION IN MEDICAL LEAVE FOLLOWING DELIVERY OF THIRD CHILD 13. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Health whether doctors in the public sector are restricted from giving any hospitalisation leave or medical leave to patients following the delivery of a third child.”
“In addition, under new regulations of the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act, only these licensed manufacturers will be permitted to import replicating and mastering equipment for optical discs. These controls will discourage the illegal replication of copyright materials. The optical disc manufacturing industry has also come forward to support Government's efforts. Last Friday, optical disc manufacturers signed a Code of Conduct which puts in place operational procedures in their business to enhance protection against the piracy of intellectual property rights. Enforcement As far as enforcement is concerned, the USTR Report is not correct to say that we have a self-policing system where enforcement is left largely to the copyright owners. Our experience has however shown that effective enforcement requires more than just action by the Government. It is best carried out with the cooperation of the industry and the public and by a combination of their resources as well as those of our enforcement agencies. This is borne out by the experiences of other countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the U.K. and the United States. Far from Government agencies being inactive, the Police have initiated 20 raids in the first 3 months of this year in Sim Lim Square and Bugis Village targetted specifically at retail pirates. These have resulted in the arrest of 21 people and the seizure of over 7,000 pirated articles. A further 49 police raids were conducted on the initiative of IPR owners and a further 47 persons were arrested. In the same period, the IPR Warrant Unit of the CID has seized infringing articles with an estimated retail value of over $880,000. Separate raids have also been conducted by the Board of Film Censors and the Hawkers' Department.”
“The Report to which the Member refers (the U.S. 1998 National Trade Estimate Report on Singapore issued by the USTR on 31st March 1998) claimed that there has been a recent upsurge in pirated software, video and music CDs and CD-ROMs into Singapore and that Singapore enforcement measures are inadequate to deal with them. The fact is that Singapore has the best IPR protection regime in Asia according to an independent survey by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy or Perc last year. For three consecutive years, the International Institute of Management Development or IMD has ranked Singapore as the top Asian nation in the protection of IPR. In the same survey, Singapore was even ranked ahead of developed countries such as Australia, Japan, France and the U.K. Government nevertheless recognises that changing circumstances and improving technologies pose new and different challenges in IPR protection and enforcement and we are committed to meeting these challenges by a combination of strict laws and enforcement. Legislation The Copyright (Amendment) Act 1998, which was passed on 19th February 1998 was brought into force last week (on 16th April 1998). It puts into effect Singapore's obligations under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights or TRIPS Agreement. The Act also enables us to accede to the 1971 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, a fact noted in the USTR Report. Government has also a few days ago announced that manufacturers of optical discs will be licensed under the Control of Manufacture Act. A condition of the licence requires the manufacturer not to infringe intellectual property rights in its operations covered by the licence.”
“If the Member will recall I do not have the statutory provisions with me right now there are statutory provisions for Malaysia and Brunei to provide for this and I shall be happy, at a later occasion, to refer these statutory provisions to the Member. As for the criterion for any extradition arrangements, not only for Singapore, it is whether the two countries concerned feel that there is a desire, a shared desire, that in the interest of law and order, it is mutually beneficial for there to be an agreement for the reciprocal handing over of fugitives. But that is a general principle. There also has to be agreement on the nature of offences which are known as extraditable offences and also on who are extraditable persons. Sometimes these arrangements are easier to conclude when countries have very similar legal systems and procedures. Where countries have rather distinctly different legal systems and procedures, it may be more difficult to conclude. So, the general approach is, first, there must be a mutuality of interest that they want to conclude these agreements and, secondly, flowing from that, they will have to examine the legal provisions whether they are compatible or not. 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. STATE LANDS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 1.45 pm.”
“Sir, I have noted the various points and questions raised by Mr Chiam. As to who initiated it, my recollection is that there was a mutual desire by both sides that the arrangements, which previously existed, should continue. In other words, it was in the interest on the law and order grounds of both Hong Kong and Singapore that the arrangements, which had been in place for extradition before Hong Kong became an SAR, should continue. Secondly, on whether they had the competence, I understand that they had the competence and there was no objection by the People's Republic of China. Thirdly, as to which ASEAN countries have formal extradition agreements, the position is that we have extradition arrangements with Malaysia and Brunei and the kind of expeditious arrangements are set out in our criminal procedures. As to the provision which he referred to concerning extradition treaties entered into by the United Kingdom and other foreign countries, yes, before Singapore separated and became independent, the United Kingdom had its extradition treaties with other countries which may have listed Singapore in its scope of operations. It does not follow that, today, all those arrangements automatically apply. In other words, the Singapore Government will have to carefully consider whether all these treaty obligations are automatically binding on us before we can consider publication of the treaties. So this will be done periodically by the Attorney-General's Chambers in consultation with those countries concerned. But I want to make the point that it is not automatic that all those extradition arrangements will apply in each and every case.”
“Sir, the Bill repeals and re-enacts section 45 of the Act to empower the Minister, by order published in the Gazette, to amend, add to or vary the new Third Schedule when an extradition treaty between any territory and Singapore has come into force or has ceased to be in force, as the case may be. Sir, the new Third Schedule in the Bill sets out the territories with which Singapore has an extradition treaty. The Schedule lists the Hong Kong SAR of the People's Republic of China. Singapore and the Hong Kong SAR signed an Agreement for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders on 11th November last year. It will enable Singapore and Hong Kong to surrender persons accused or convicted of offences committed within the jurisdiction of either Party, who are found within the jurisdiction of the other, subject to the terms of the Agreement. When this Bill is enacted and comes into force, Hong Kong will be gazetted under section 4(1)(b) of the Act as a "foreign State" for the purposes of this Act and for the purposes of the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) (Consolidation) Declaration (Chapter 103, Declaration 1) will be amended to remove Hong Kong from the list of declared Commonwealth countries. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill amends the Extradition Act in order to enable the continuation of the system of extradition with Hong Kong. Currently, the Extradition Act allows the extradition of fugitives to and from "foreign States" and declared Commonwealth countries. Extradition vis-�-vis Hong Kong was on the basis of the provision on declared Commonwealth countries. From 1st July 1997, Hong Kong ceased to be part of the Commonwealth. As a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong is no longer a Commonwealth State, nor is it, strictly speaking, a "foreign State" within the meaning of the Extradition Act. In order to enable extradition arrangements with territories which have a special status such as Hong Kong, it is therefore necessary to amend the Act. This Bill therefore amends the definition of "foreign State" to include any territory specified in the new Third Schedule to the Act, with which Singapore has an extradition treaty. Sir, for the benefit of Members, let me say that the United Kingdom has taken a similar approach on the ground that the Hong Kong SAR is a sui generis entity in international law. Last year, the United Kingdom made elaborate amendments to their Extradition Act 1989 so that its provisions pertaining to foreign States, designated Commonwealth countries and colonies also applied to the Hong Kong SAR. We, however, have taken a simpler approach of widening the definition of "foreign State" so that it covers not just states but also "territories" such as the Hong Kong SAR.”
“But it will be a pity if we have the form and elaborate structures, tremendous numbers of meetings, but at the end of the day, very few results. So let us go for the results, whatever the form may be.”
“And I am told that the National Parks Board has also contributed S$15,000 to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Primary Production Department has contributed $10,577 for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. I do not know what else can be discovered from the other Ministries. But the point I want to make is, again, that, yes, we can increase our contributions but we always have to bear in mind our position and our resources. And I think within the constraints of our small size and limited resources, we have not done badly in terms of our contributions to the UN system. On Mr Rai's comments on the economic union, I have nothing further to add than what I have said to Mr Chiam, and I have taken note of it. As to institutionalising links, there are various shapes and forms in which countries can conduct relations. And I think between Malaysia and Singapore, it is very fair for me to say that the different Ministries and different agencies have very good contacts with each other. The Ministers have good working relations, not just with the Foreign Ministry, but also with the communications, as well departments like the Police and Immigration under the charge of my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs. This has evolved over a period of years. Do we want to change it and have some institutional system? Some countries have what they call joint commissions which meet annually at specific dates. So there are various forms. I think from my viewpoint, as Foreign Minister, I am open to suggestions. But I will pay emphasis to the substance and results, rather than form. You can have form.”
“15 pm To-date, we have trained some 6,000 participants from 92 developing countries, under various types of training programmes. I think this is an important part of your foreign policy objective. How else do you support the UN system? Because that is the way I look at it - contributions to support the UN system. I think we contribute to the UN system by paying our contributions on time. And I hope Mr Simon Tay will sometimes make a call for bigger nations, whom I will not mention specifically, to pay their contributions on time. For 1997, we paid US$1.7 million as our excess contribution to the UN's regular budget, and US$314,000 to the peacekeeping budget. Our voluntary contribution to UN-related international organisations was about US$317,000. Is it a lot? Is it a little? It depends on how you look at it. It was a 27% increase from our contributions in 1996. Another US$182,000 was made to non-related international organisations. Our participation in peacekeeping operations is about S$159,000. And the Singapore Cooperation Programme, which I referred to, amounts to S$10 million. Therefore, if you look at it in financial terms, Singapore's contribution, voluntary and mandatory, just as administered by the Foreign Ministry - I emphasise that because some other Ministries have similar programmes - was in the tune of some S$15 million for 1997. As I said, other than MFA, we have contributions to the UN Environment Programme. I take note that Mr Simon Tay would like this to be increased. In 1997, we contributed US$15,000. But apart from these contributions, I should also mention there are specific funds, such as the UNEP Trust Fund for East-Asian Seas. For 1998, we contributed US$10,000.”
“It may not be of the frequency and the magnitude that Mr Simon Tay would want. But I believe we have demonstrated Singapore's willingness to contribute to the international community as a country that is mindful of our role and willing to perform our role as a responsible member of the UN. But to look at it really, we must not forget that we also make contributions in other forms, which are very difficult to quantify. But if you ask the Ministries and the Ministry of Finance, they can quantify it in terms of costs. Our participation in UN related activities like peace-keeping operations, that is an important contribution. But again, this is to show support for the system. Mr Simon Tay just now referred to the fact that we are holding workshops, seminars and conferences. Indeed, we do hold conferences. For the past three years, I have been guest-of-honour at seminars and workshops hosted in Singapore, for example, on peace-keeping. There are certain costs involved in hosting that seminar. I am sure that if I add up all the costs, hospitality, the reception we have given and the local transportation costs for all these conferences and workshops, they can add to these figures, which I have not done so. But it is a relevant factor. It again shows our support. In terms of showing our willingness to perform our role, because we have done comparatively better than some other developing countries, let us not forget our technical assistance programmes. Of course, it is not a programme for contributions to international organisations, but it shows your foreign policy stand, and under our Singapore Cooperation Programme, which is bilateral, as well as through schemes which we tie up with other organisations and countries, including the UNDP, World Bank, and so on. 1.”
“First, let me reply to Mr Simon Tay. There are various ways in which you can look at the extent of our contributions to United Nations organisations, whether mandatory or voluntary contributions. The way Mr Simon Tay has looked at it, he thinks it is not adequate and not commensurate with our position or status and he, therefore, calls for an increase in contributions. But in case he believes that our contributions are inadequate, I would present a different way of looking at it. The fact is, firstly, we have over the years increased our contributions. But when we contribute, we do so not in order to solve the financial problems of that particular international organisation but, more importantly, to demonstrate Singapore's support for that organisation for what they are doing and it is more symbolic of support and hopefully will trigger other countries to do so. Really, large contributions have to be made by other countries. Let us remember that we are a small country and we have to be realistic as to how much we can actually contribute to international organisations. If you look at the 1997 UN handbook, there are more than 37 organisations within the UN system, and if you look at the Year Book of International Organisations, there are some 13,600 international organisations. Clearly, it is not possible for us to make contributions to so many organisations. So our approach is: be selective, do what we can within our resources, and the objective is to show support for the UN system and for those organisations. In that sense, we have traditionally made voluntary contributions to a number of UN related IOs, including the UN Children's Fund, the UN Fund for Women and the UNDP. We have gradually increased it over the years.”
“Since 1990, Singapore has formalised diplomatic relations with some 52 countries. At the same time, we have developed ties with many other countries with which we have not established the formal act of diplomatic relations. He asked about roving ambassadors. But in asking that question, he was cognisant of the fact that, as a small country, with a developing foreign service, we just cannot have resident ambassadors in many parts of the world. So we establish a non-resident ambassadors or roving ambassadors scheme as a means of expanding our diplomatic representation abroad. When we appoint non-resident ambassadors, we do so after careful selection of suitably qualified candidates. I take his point that we should try to expand and build on this roving ambassadors. We will try to do so, but before the Government appoints more non-resident ambassadors, we must ensure that we have the candidates who can adequately and effectively represent the interest of Singapore in the country of accreditation. I should say that since 1991 we have appointed 14 non-resident or roving ambassadors, and between the 14 roving ambassadors they cover 37 countries in Asia, Europe, Latin America and Africa and the Pacific.”
“He urged that we have diplomatic relations with as many countries in the world as possible. It is very difficult to disagree with the objectives that he urges upon the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Presently, Singapore has established diplomatic relations with some 149 countries. I would say our considerations for establishing diplomatic ties are three-fold: first, sometimes we are approached by another government to establish formal diplomatic ties. Second, to do so is consistent with our policy of cultivating a constituency of support from countries which are responsive to our interests at the UN and other international forums. Third, where we do not have significant bilateral relations with other governments, there is merit in cultivating relations. But I should explain to Mr Shriniwas Rai that in today's world of diplomacy, the formality of entering into diplomatic relations is really not a condition precedent, i. It is not an obstacle or a bar to having interactions and having to conduct various relations with those countries. In other words, it is a formality that does not prevent visits, discussions and so on. There are many ways in which this interaction with other countries can be achieved, trade and economic linkages, people-to-people contact and mutual support in international forums. So the fact that we may not have formal diplomatic ties with some countries has never precluded us. Indeed, many of the Foreign Ministers and other leaders have come to Singapore, and some of them are from countries where we do not have formal diplomatic ties. I am not sure whether Mr Shriniwas Rai had in mind the formal act or whether he meant actually establishing a diplomatic presence, which is of course a different thing altogether.”
“But this does not preclude countries from helping one another or formulating new mechanisms, and this was a point Dr Tan Boon Wan asked about new mechanisms. It should not prevent us from formulating new mechanisms to ensure that problems like the haze or the currency crisis do not recur. In this respect, steps have already been taken. On the issue of the haze, for example, Members have heard my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, recently tell the House that the ASEAN Environment Ministers had met to look for ways to solve the problem. Similarly, in the regional financial situation, ASEAN leaders had met in December to discuss the issue. A leaders' statement was subsequently issued. More recently, Singapore has offered its assistance to which I have referred. Other ASEAN countries have similarly provided assistance. The ASEAN countries have jointly sought solutions to the crisis. Under the Manila Framework, six ASEAN countries Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand together with other Asia-Pacific countries such as US, China, Korea, Hong Kong and Australia have agreed, as Members would have read in the press, on the need for a regional surveillance mechanism for early detection of problems. Sir, there are indeed mechanisms for regional countries to deal with such problems. But to be realistic, I must admit that we cannot guarantee that such problems would not recur as there are so many factors and causes involved. On its part, Singapore will work with the other countries to see how these mechanisms can be strengthened in the future. 1.00 pm Now, I turn to the two related questions asked by Mr Shriniwas Rai about MFA's policy of diplomatic relations.”
“It is with these considerations in mind that Singapore has offered a contribution of US$5 billion loan to Indonesia, as part of the IMF package. Prime Minister Goh has also proposed a multi-lateral trade finance guarantee facility for Indonesia. This proposal is awaiting responses from countries to which the Prime Minister has written, including the G7 countries US, Canada, Japan, UK, France, Germany, Italy, as well as Australia, Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Netherlands. However, our assistance alone would not be effective. It is therefore important that we work with international and regional institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and other countries to assist Indonesia in its economic recovery. We are a small country. Our assistance is within the constraints of our resources, and our US$5 billion loan package and our PM's proposal of a multi-lateral trade finance guarantee facility for Indonesia should be seen in that light. But Singapore can play a catalytic role in proposing workable ideas and getting others to join in doing more to help Indonesia. In other words, we try to play a supportive and constructive role alongside other countries to help restore confidence to Indonesia and to the region. I hope that with the international collective will and cooperation, Indonesia and the rest of the region will emerge out of the regional economic crisis even stronger. I now turn to Dr Tan Boon Wan's comments about the principle of non-interference, and how do we tackle transnational problems that affect various countries. I would respond that we should and indeed we have always abided by the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. It is a principle that we should always uphold.”
“Taking into consideration factors such as their sheer geographical size and large population, Indonesia would need time to tackle the financial crisis and stabilise its economy. The Indonesian government has to handle many competing priorities, especially during the current economic difficulties. But the problems the Indonesian government faces are not insurmountable. There are two reasons why I say this. First, President Suharto has begun his new term as President and he remains in control of the situation. We are confident that he will make some tough decisions to resolve the current crisis. As Prime Minister Goh said in his letter to congratulate President Suharto which was published recently, "Indonesia had faced overwhelming difficulties and widespread poverty in the past. But through President Suharto's strong will and leadership, Indonesia overcame them." The second reason is that the international community has come forward to assist Indonesia to stabilise its economy and ameliorate some of the impact of the financial crisis. Yes, there may be differences in how the problems could be resolved, but I believe that all concerned parties want to see Indonesia recover from this crisis by adopting the most realistic and rational solutions. Sir, in today's world, we see a series of cross border linkages bringing countries closer together. Strengthening these regional or global linkages will be beneficial for economic development. In that regard, Indonesia is a vital link in that chain for the region and for Singapore. Indonesia is a key strategic player in the region. A politically stable and economically sound Indonesia is therefore important. It is important not only for Singapore, it is important for ASEAN, it is important for the rest of the region and beyond.”
“Relations in the past year have been strengthened by regular exchanges of visits. Our Prime Minister and President Suharto have kept up their regular meetings to discuss various issues. In August 1997, some of our Members of this House visited Indonesia in conjunction with their independence day celebrations. This is a good reflection of the broad-based relationship between the two countries. There have also been concrete examples of close bilateral cooperation. One clear example was the difficult joint search-and-rescue-cum-recovery operations in the aftermath of the SilkAir MI 185 tragedy at Palembang in December last year. It was heartening to see cooperation from the ministerial level to the local authorities on the ground. And the tragedy, while I believe we certainly would have wished it had not taken place, had brought our two countries and people closer. But taking the situation as at present, we must recognise that Indonesia is going through a difficult patch. They are facing economic problems and a currency crisis, problems of drought, shortage of food supplies, medicine, etc, and there have also been reports of sporadic unrest. However, general law and order have been maintained. Sir, we, in Singapore, must understand and empathise with these difficulties that the Indonesians are experiencing. We are concerned about the difficulties they face and we will do our best to help them overcome their difficulties. As the Prime Minister has said, it is impossible for Singapore to close our eyes or fold our arms and ignore the problems of our neighbours. We should see these problems in perspective.”
“This general undertaking will be confirmed in an agreement to be signed within sixty days from the issuance of the joint communique. Officials from both countries, I understand, will be meeting in Kuala Lumpur on or around 9th April to discuss this matter. We had originally sought a full water agreement with specific terms and conditions. Achieving a full-fledged agreement with Malaysia on extending the existing water agreements beyond the present expiry dates of 2011 and 2061 would help not only in dismantling a psychological barrier between our two countries, but replace it with a new framework of cooperation for mutual benefit. However, Dr Mahathir indicated that he was unable to agree to a full-fledged agreement at this point of time. He said that he would also need time to get the backing of state governments, as water is under state control. Sir, lacking a firm agreement that sets out explicitly and comprehensively the terms and conditions for the supply of water beyond the present terminal dates, we will have, of course, to continue to intensify our efforts to find new sources of water supply. This is something, as mentioned on other occasions in this House, we have been actively doing over the years, even though water is not of immediate issue for us. Currently, desalination, of course, remains one salient option among several that are being explored. Let me now turn, Sir, to the comments and questions raised by colleagues on Singapore-Indonesia relations. I would first speak generally about bilateral relations since the House last met in the Committee of Supply. I would say that bilateral relations generally are close and good. Our ties with Indonesia have been built on a strong foundation based on common interest in many spheres.”
“And as Members are aware, the joint communique issued after the Prime Minister's discussion has indeed mentioned that Singapore and Malaysia will intensify efforts to cooperate in the areas of banking and finance, and all possible areas. Efforts are also under way to encourage mutual investments in the key economic sectors of both countries. This will make Singapore and Malaysia stakeholders in each other's prosperity, to cite the sentiments in the communique I think Members in this House should also know that ASEAN is now working towards establishing a free trade area (AFTA) by the year 2003. At the moment, this is a current priority. However, as for Mr Chiam's proposal of an economic union, and I am no expert on this matter, I have no doubt that my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry, would take note of this and give it consideration within the broader context and desire of closer economic cooperation with Malaysia. But we must remind ourselves, as Prime Minister Goh said last year in his reply to Mr Chiam, that such cooperation, of course, takes two willing parties. On the progress of various items in the communique, the officials from both sides, I believe, will meet in the course of the next few weeks to follow up on the various items in the communique. Mr Chiam made reference to the question of the water supply. This has also been dealt with by Minister Lee Yock Suan yesterday, when winding up on the Ministry of Trade and Industry. To that, let me just add that, as reflected in the joint communique, Dr Mahathir had agreed that Malaysia would undertake to continue the supply of water to Singapore beyond the expiry dates of the existing 1961 and 1962 water agreements.”
“It serves also to highlight the commitment by both sides to redouble efforts to resolve several outstanding bilateral issues, such as the long-term supply of water to Singapore, the development of Malayan Railway land in Singapore as well as the dispute over Pedra Branca. As stated in the joint communique, the agreements reached between the two Prime Ministers have laid a firm foundation for both Malaysia and Singapore to cooperate closely in the future. We hope that progress can be made on the outstanding issues. This will help to maintain the momentum in bilateral relations. So in response to the questions posed by Dr Ong Chit Chung and others on bilateral relations, I would say that bilateral relations are back on track, and this is evident from the joint communique. 12.45 pm However, I do not wish to mislead Members into believing that we have solved all the problems. There are still issues that remain to be solved. These issues cannot be solved overnight. However, I believe that our Prime Minister's visit and the discussions between the two leaders have indeed laid a good foundation for further progress to be made on the outstanding bilateral issues. And as Prime Minister Goh said to the press after the visit, it was a useful visit. In this improved atmosphere and common desire to enhance cooperation, both sides, I believe, can now better manage bilateral relations. I have noted what Mr Chiam See Tong has said about the possibility of an economic union between Singapore and Malaysia, a point which he had made previously when he spoke in the debate on the President's Address last year. I understand the basic thrust of his proposal, which is that he recommends closer economic cooperation between Singapore and Malaysia.”
“Prime Minister Goh's visit to Kuala Lumpur was significant in that it took place against a backdrop of the regional economic downturn which has been described as the worst crisis faced by the region since the Second World War. In this regard, our Prime Minister's visit was a useful opportunity to continue with his earlier discussions with Prime Minister Mahathir, the earlier discussions being held a few weeks prior to that in February as well as on 20th January. These discussions were focused on how Singapore and Malaysia could cooperate closely in all possible areas for mutual benefit. Sir, the interests of Singapore and Malaysia are closely intertwined, particularly in the economic area. The contagion effect of the regional financial crisis has underscored this and emphasised the fundamental interdependency between regional countries and the need to cooperate. Our Prime Minister's visit, I believe, reflected the readiness of both Singapore and Malaysia to work towards realising the full potential in our bilateral relationship based on the principle of prosper-thy-neighbour. Sir, the discussions between Prime Minister Goh and Dr Mahathir took place in a warm and friendly atmosphere. And on the whole, the visit was useful for both Singapore and Malaysia because both sides can now build on this for even closer relations. I believe, Sir, that this is a direction in which Singapore-Malaysia relations should continue to develop. The outcome of the discussions between the two Prime Ministers is reflected in a joint communique which was issued at the end of our Prime Minister's visit. That joint communique spells out several areas of proposed cooperation between the two countries, including financial and economic cooperation.”
“And that is one of the reasons why we have sought the non-permanent seat in the Security Council. If I may, Sir, proceed to the other points which were raised yesterday and not answered. First, I will take the various comments which were made on Singapore-Malaysia relations by Dr Ong Chit Chung, Mr Chiam See Tong, Mr Hawazi and a few others. First, to recap the events since we last discussed the situation in this House. When we recall our last discussion in this House, it was in the context of still fairly strained relations between our two countries. But on that occasion, I did say that there were some encouraging developments to indicate that relations were slowly getting back to normal. I would say that since then there have been further significant developments in our bilateral relations. Members will recall that in September last year, the Malaysian Customs commenced stringent checks on lorries ferrying goods from Malaysia to Singapore and vice versa. An adverse effect of this move was the chronic vehicular congestion at the Causeway that lasted up to one month or so. Fortunately, the situation eased soon after the two Prime Ministers met at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Edinburgh in October 1997 and they agreed that both sides should see how this problem should be resolved early. What are the recent developments? Since the two Prime Ministers met in October, they have met on three separate occasions, once in January and twice in February, the latest being 16th February when Prime Minister Goh visited Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur.”
“Sir, may I continue with my response to the various points raised yesterday. When we adjourned, I was responding to Dr Ong Chit Chung's question on the United Nations. The second point he had raised on the UN was with regard to our candidature for the United Nations Security Council for the non-permanent seat. He asked me for a progress report. Members will recall that Singapore presented its candidature for the non-permanent seat in the Security Council for the period 2001 to 2002. The elections for that particular vacancy will take place in the year 2000 and, if elected, we hope that we can bring a constructive and useful perspective, shall I say, a small state perspective, to the UN Security Council. It is an important perspective because a majority of the United Nations members are small states. Participating in the UN Security Council will also allow Singapore to learn first-hand how the UN Security Council operates, both in its formal session as well as in the consultations. Since we became a member of the United Nations in 1965, we have never served in the UN Security Council which of course, in a sense, is at the very heart of the UN system. So far, Singapore is the only declared candidate for the Asian group seat for the year 2001 to 2002. Our candidature has been endorsed by ASEAN countries and many other countries, both from within the Asian group as well as outside the Asian group, have expressed their support for our candidature in writing. We recognise that within our limited manpower and financial resources, Singapore can do only so much at the United Nations. But let me assure the House that we will continue to do our part as a responsible member of the UN system and as a member of the international community.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1998/1999, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Third, prospects in the Korean Peninsula appear to have improved with the DPRK agreeing to take part in the Four-Party talks. The preliminary meeting was held in Geneva in December 1997 and is to be followed up by a second preliminary meeting in March 1998 in Geneva. Fourth, in the South China Sea territorial disputes, always a cause of concern in the sense that it is a potential flash point, we are glad that there has been no escalation of tensions since we last discussed that matter in this House. Fifth, I would add that the successful demarcation of the Eastern China-Russia border declared during President Yeltsin's visit in November 1997 is a factor that has helped the general stability in the region.”
“As for China-Japan relations, here also, we have to note the exchanges of visits by Prime Minister Hashimoto to China in September 1997 and Premier Li Peng to Japan in November 1997, which have together stabilised Sino-Japan relations. As for US-Japan relations, the other side of the triangle, United States-Japan relationship does continue to remain the most stable among the regional powers. Although there will be from time to time economic friction, both sides have shown that they can continue to cooperate closely, particularly in the context of the Security Alliance Understanding. As for Russia, we have to note that there have also been high profile exchanges of visits involving Russia. For example, President Yeltsin visited China in November, Premier Li Peng visited Russia and Prime Minister Hashimoto visited Russia in November 1997. We are told that the Summit between President Yeltsin and President Jiang is scheduled for later this year. As the strategic triangle of United States, China and Japan continues, in our view, to be the foundation of stability in the Asia-Pacific region, I think Members will appreciate that it is in Singapore's interest to see that the three major powers and players are constructively engaged and their relationship strengthened. This will ensure a stable and peaceful balance of power in the region. What are the other encouraging signs in the strategic environment? They include the revision of the US-Japan Defence Guidelines which has reaffirmed the United States' commitment to the security in the region. Second,, cross-straits relations appear to have stabilised and with some positive signs that both sides are preparing for the resumption of dialogue in the near future.”
“Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. I hope they will forgive me if I respond not necessarily in the order in which the points have been raised, but it does not reflect in any way on the importance of the points. But I think it may be more convenient for me to respond in this manner so as not to risk being cut by the "guillotine" in the midst of my developing answers on some other topics. I propose therefore to start by responding to Dr Ong Chit Chung who asked my views on the changing strategic situation in Asia. Sir, since July 1997, which was when we discussed foreign affairs in the Committee of Supply last, I would say that the situation in our Asia-Pacific region has been marred and marked by the regional financial crisis which has really exacted a very heavy toll on most Southeast Asian countries. Having said that, let me add that not all the news has been bad in the sense that there have been some positive developments on other fronts. The triangular relationships, for example, between the United States, China and Japan, have stabilised and show some signs of improvement. Over the last six months, we have, in fact, witnessed high level exchanges amongst leaders of these three major powers and also visits to and from Russia. For example, when we look at the United States-China relations, President Jiang's visit to the United States in October/November last year was a first in 12 years by a Chinese Head of State and is regarded as signalling the normalisation and enhancement of United States and China relations. Both sides, of course, do seem to have important differences, but they seem willing to engage one another and thus provide a more predictable and stable relationship for themselves, which in turn augurs well for this region.”
“Sir, may I suggest that we allow the other Members to speak on their amendments.”
“' The point I am making, Sir, is that the holder of the office of Attorney-General has important functions and duties. If he exercises his functions and duties in a manner that amounts to abuse or impropriety, there will be a proper investigation and consequences. But that is separate from the point made by Mr Jeyaretnam that just because he disagrees with individual decisions of the Attorney-General on particular cases that that decision must then be subject to scrutiny in this Chamber, and the Attorney-General has to be accountable and answerable and to give reasons for his decision. As I said, that will be wholly improper and unwise to do so. We have not done it for some 30 years and I commend to the House that we continue to stay that course.”
“I reject the notion of Mr Jeyaretnam that his individual decisions must be subject to scrutiny in this Parliament. But the Attorney-General is accountable to the Government in discharging the functions of his office, because the Constitution provides that he may be removed from office by the President if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister. Under Article 35 of the Constitution, there are grounds for removal of the Attorney-General. And as I have mentioned, he may be removed from office only on narrow grounds and similar to the grounds and the procedure provided for Judges of the Supreme Court. Let me also add that the office of the Attorney-General carries with it very important functions and powers which cannot be abused. If there is any abuse and any infraction, it will, of course, carry with it consequences if allegations of impropriety are substantiated. If Members have forgotten, in 1988, the example to drive home the point that holders of public office will have allegations of impropriety examined has been firmly established. Because in January 1988, the then Prime Minister, in respect of rumours and allegations of impropriety of the previous Attorney-General, categorically stated and I quote: `Every allegation made against any official of corrupt, illegal or improper conduct or action will be investigated. The fact that the official complained against is the Attorney-General, the highest legal officer in charge of investigations, will not prevent such investigations.' And he said: `The allegations in that particular case had been investigated and they were unfounded.' Let me add what the then Prime Minister said: `If they had been substantiated, the Attorney-General would have had to face the consequences.”
“In some cases, the public prosecutor is a public officer and the Attorney-General is a member of the Cabinet or member of the Legislature. Where it is distinct, the public prosecutor is answerable to the Attorney-General. Indeed, in most of the Commonwealth jurisdictions where the officers are different, the public prosecutor's role and function are answerable to the Attorney-General. In Singapore, we have this system where the Attorney-General has two functions, but this is a system we have had ever since we were independent, and even before independence. It was as a result of a recommendation, and I have been advised by the Attorney-General, which finds its roots in the Report of the Reid Commission, 1957. The Reid Commission then recommended as follows and I quote from paragraph 127: `. Some Commonwealth countries, the Attorney-General holds a political office. In others, the political functions normally exercised by a political Attorney-General exercised by Minister of Justice or Minister for Law. While the Attorney-General exercises the more professional functions of giving independent legal advice to the government, representing the government in the courts and perhaps assuming responsibility for public prosecution. On the whole, we prefer the latter.' This is a system we have had since independence and before independence. It has worked well and I see no reason why we should change it. Let me say that, ultimately, it boils down to the strength of character and personal integrity of the holder of the office that is of paramount importance when we look at the position of the Attorney-General. This does not mean that there is no accountability. The Attorney-General is a constitutional office.”
“It is a safeguarded appointment. Then Article 35 also has safeguards to ensure that he cannot be removed arbitrarily. The grounds on which he can be removed are narrowly framed and the procedure for his removal calls for a tribunal of judges, chaired by the Chief Justice. Fifthly, it is not surprising, therefore, that it is an established practice in all common law jurisdictions that the Attorney-General will not publish his detailed reasons for any prosecutorial decisions. There are very good reasons for this practice, because if reasons are given in detail, surely it must lead to public debate in this House and outside this House about the case and on the guilt or innocence of the suspect. It must result in that. And it is best that such questions be decided in the courts and not be subject for trial by public debate in this Chamber just because a Member of the House or a Member of the Opposition is unable to agree with the legal advice or decision of the Attorney-General. Sir, we have followed this practice in Singapore for the past 30 years, and I think this system has worked well. If the prosecutorial system in Singapore is not to break down, we should continue with this practice. The other point made by Mr Jeyaretnam is that we should separate the functions of the Attorney-General as legal adviser and Attorney-General as public prosecutor. I would commend to Mr Jeyaretnam to read a paper called "Emerging Problems in Defining the Modern Role of the Office of Attorney-General in Commonwealth Countries", a memorandum prepared for the Commonwealth Secretariat by Prof. Edwards of Canada, where he surveyed Commonwealth practice. There is no lack of models for us to follow. In some countries, the model is that the Attorney-General is distinct from the public prosecutor.”
“Does the Member mean that after the AG has taken a decision, he is answerable to this Chamber about his decisions, why he prosecutes in one case and not the other, why he appeals in one case and not the other? I think it will be wholly wrong and improper to proceed along the course recommended by Mr Jeyaretnam. And I think we can cite several other reasons. Apart from the fact that it will be contrary to the express provision of Article 35, because we cannot say in one breath that the Attorney-General has power exercisable in his discretion and, in the same breath, ask him to have his decisions subject to legislative scrutiny, questioning or debate in this Parliament. The second reason is that it is in the public interest that the Attorney-General should make his decisions on such matters unencumbered, without any fear or worry that the matter will be subject to scrutiny in this Chamber. Thirdly, let us recall that when the Attorney-General decides to prosecute in any particular matter, he does so on two main principles: (a) whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed; (b) whether there is a prima facie case for prosecution. If there is a prima facie case for prosecution, whether there is some public interest element against it. These are two considerations that are generally recognised in Commonwealth jurisdictions. In both considerations, there is a host of factors which he has to take into consideration and evaluate. He has to make judgments on each of these factors. Fourthly, because of these considerations, the Constitution has placed the office of the Attorney-General on a special footing. I would say on a footing analogous with the position of Judges. For example, the Attorney-General's appointment is subject to the safeguard of the President's veto.”
“Does he mean that he must give an explanation?”
“Sir, I will respond to Mr Jeyaretnam's points and my colleague, the Minister of State, will respond to Mr Shriniwas Rai. Of the two points raised by Mr Jeyaretnam, let me first deal with his second point, that is, the point of accountability of Attorney-General as Public Prosecutor. His proposition is that the Attorney-General as Public Prosecutor must be accountable and answerable to this House for his decisions when his decisions are queried or called into question with respect to prosecution. I think I want to make it clear, Sir, that I completely disagree with his proposition and I would say that it would be wholly wrong and improper for us to subject the Attorney-General's prosecutorial decisions to scrutiny in this Chamber. Let me elaborate. First, let us recapitulate the two key functions of the Attorney-General under Article 35 of the Constitution. Under Article 35, clause 7, of the Constitution, he has two key functions. One is to advise the Government on such legal matters that are referred to him. The second is the prosecution function. The Attorney-General shall have the power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence. What does "exercisable at his discretion" mean? It surely means what it says, that he has, as holder of that office, discretion to conduct or discontinue any proceedings, whether to charge a person for an offence, under what provision of the Penal Code or some other Act of Parliament for a lesser offence, for a more serious offence, and when the trial is on, if convicted, what kind of punishment to press the courts. These are all prosecutorial decisions exercisable in his discretion. He is not subject to requirements of acting on advice or consultation.”
“For example, with regard to division of matrimonial property, the Bureau still advises and assists the individual to deal with these problems and will continue to do so. As for the means test, let me also assure the Member that the income ceiling was increased only two years ago. But we should not look just at the increase in the income ceiling because, in addition to the quantum and the deductions which are made for HDB flat or CPF and so on, people who have more than the income ceiling qualify for legal aid. In fact, the present system is that nearly 80% of those who apply for legal aid do qualify for legal aid. I think that is not an unimpressive figure. Sir, I will stop here to enable the Minister of State to respond to the other two questions.”
“Whether we should go one step further and corporatise it, I do not rule it out, but I would say we will have it under review and take that step if and when it is absolutely necessary. On Mr Chuang Shaw Peng's question, I hope he would understand that I will not be able to give a very specific reply to his point at this stage because it is a matter that I would have to consult with other agencies like the Ministry of National Development, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and so on. After getting the necessary inputs from them, we will respond to Mr Chuang. My understanding is that the position in the United Kingdom is pretty much the same as in Singapore on the rights of mortgagees of land, ie, builders have no special lien in respect of materials they provide for the construction of the building. But he has referred to certain specific subsidiary legislation. I have taken note of it and we will look into that. Mr Kenneth Chen talked about legal aid. He has made three points. One is about the problem of translation. Let me assure him that in my discussions with the Director of Legal Aid, I have been assured that they have adequate translators, but I do take note of his point that if it is not sufficient we should ensure that whatever resources are necessary are made available. The two more substantive points were the closure of files. I must assure him and the House that it is not true that once a decree nisi is obtained the file is closed. On the contrary. The Bureau informs the applicant of the progress of the case and the file is not closed till the decree absolute is obtained. When an order of court on ancillary issues is obtained, an applicant faces problems.”
“In case the impression is given that the Official Assignee does not have in mind the plight of the individuals concerned, I should remind the House that in fact it was due to the Official Assignee's initiative that we amended the law in September last year to enable bankrupts who have been in bankruptcy for more than five years and with debts of up to $250,000 to be discharged by certification of the Official Assignee. Before the amendment, the ceiling was $100,000. The point I am making is that following the amendments to the law, a large number, some 6,500 bankrupts, became eligible for consideration for discharge. In fact, 3,400 bankrupts, or 52%, have already been discharged. Despite the high volume of bankrupts, the bankruptcy clearance rate, ie, the number of cases discharged compared to the number of new cases rose to a record high of 161%. Creditors too have had their interests served receiving record dividend payments of $30.7 million in 1997, which was 29% higher than what was received in 1996. So the Official Assignee, through laws and through the administration, has tried to serve both the interest of individual bankrupts, not forgetting the interest of the creditors, which are two duties that he has to bear in mind. Mr Shriniwas Rai asked about increasing the jurisdiction. We have to examine what has happened in other countries and see whether it is appropriate for our own system. I would say that comment also applies to his suggestion for corporatisation because the Official Assignee and Public Trustee's Office is already an autonomous agency since 1st August 1997. This has enabled it to manage its resources more effectively and efficiently.”
“There is a duty towards a company and one is accountable for its affairs. The statement of affairs which a director of a wound-up company is required to file with the Official Receiver is an important document because it enables the Official Receiver to inquire into the extent of a company's assets and liabilities. In the past, it is a fact that the Official Receiver faced considerable difficulties in getting directors to file the statement of affairs. The situation improved after 1993 when a number of them were convicted in court and fined. But fewer and fewer summonses are now issued against company directors. I am told there were 56 in 1992, 38 in 1995 and 31 in 1997. I am also told that to-date, no director has been disqualified because of convictions or failure to file his statement of affairs. Let me also add that before the Official Receiver applies for a summons, at least three reminders are sent and extensions granted to him to submit the statement of affairs. The Official Receiver also gives guidance and advice. On Mr Chng Hee Kok's question, let me say that in 1997, there were 1,694 new bankruptcies as compared to 1,252 in 1996, which represents some 35% increase. But in an economic downturn, it is not unexpected. From our viewpoint, what is important is that the bankrupts have the opportunity to get out of bankruptcy as quickly as possible. This is where the Official Assignee comes in.”
“Amendments may also have to be made to the Computer Misuse Act, the Rules of Court and other existing intellectual property legislation, and we will do so in close consultation with agencies like the NCB, MTI and MHA. In addition to the reply to Prof. Chin's point, the Attorney-General's Chambers are looking into the review of the Criminal Procedure Code to streamline and update criminal procedure and police powers, to review also the Penal Code, to update penalties and to modernise code. And, if I may say so, we are also looking at various aspects of the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code to examine, for example, the scope of the hearsay rule. To sum up, on law reform, it is under control. It may not be exactly in the shape and form that Prof. Chin wants a centralised agency, but we have to constantly review the mechanism. What is important is to ensure that the law reform actually does take place. 5.00 pm Mr David Lim, and related points were made by Mr Chng Hee Kok, touched on the plight of directors who find themselves in a situation where they are the remaining directors and may have to comply with obligations to file the statement of affairs. I will focus really on the role of the Official Receiver and the duties of the Official Assignee and Public Trustee's Office. He wants us to be sympathetic and I take note of his point. But let me also say that obviously each case has to be considered on its own merits. There is a need to balance the difficulties and plight of inactive directors with the loss suffered by creditors and investors of those wound-up companies whom the law is duty bound to protect. Because when one becomes a director, say, as a favour to a sibling or friend, he must be aware that there are certain responsibilities.”
“Therefore, the aim of the Ministry of Law in setting up this unit is to be able to support economic Ministries like the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Trade and Industry, to ensure that our laws keep in pace with changes which are vital to Singapore. I would say that the third area where we will work closely with other Ministries such as Home Affairs, Community Development and Health is to review laws to improve community relations and to increase social peace and security. In this area, we will continue to evolve our own laws on ADR and mediation, which will be touched on in greater detail by my colleague, the Minister of State. What I should emphasise is that whatever method we have to review our laws and whatever instrument we have for law reform, it cannot be done by one agency acting alone. It has to tap available resources in the Academy of Law, the Attorney-General's Chambers, the Law Society and, of course, the academic talents and brains that exist in the University of Singapore's Law Faculty. In this way, I think we can ensure that our laws keep in pace with the rapid changes that are taking place both in Singapore and in the global economy. As to the specific points that have been raised by Mr Chng Hee Kok and Prof. Chin, let me say that the Attorney-General's Chambers currently chairs a committee which examines the legal, regulatory and enforcement issues concerning information technology and electronic processes. Actually, we are already looking at a number of draft legislation, including one on electronic transactions which will regulate digital signatures, a point which Mr Chng Hee Kok alluded to when he asked for safeguards in the context of IRAS' latest requirements.”
“For the future, while we may not immediately proceed to one centralised agency, I can assure both Mr Chng and Prof. Chin Tet Yung that the Ministry of Law, together with the Attorney-General, will set up a special unit to coordinate and promote law reform and law review at the national level. Such a unit will work closely with relevant agencies in the legal fraternity. What are the areas that such a unit might usefully focus on? I can think of three areas which should have priority. First, the full range of intellectual property laws and laws concerning information technology. This includes some of the points that have been made by Prof. Chin and Mr Chng Hee Kok. This would also include laws that support the development of the emerging sciences in the medical field and biotechnology. The second area is to study, together with the economic agencies, what changes have to be made to legislation in the fields of business, banking, finance and commerce. In this regard, I think we should realise that law reform is not just an academic exercise. We should view laws, the legal institutions and legal procedures as an important infrastructure to support our overall objective of establishing ourselves as a financial and commercial centre. Much has been spoken about the need to be competitive in these areas. In that context of being competitive, laws, the effectiveness of legal procedures and legal institutions must be considered as part and parcel of the infrastructure to support our commercial competitiveness. So we will consult relevant agencies on what should be done to update and make changes to laws such as the Companies Act, Trustees Act, Bankruptcy Act, Bill of Sales Act and other current laws in the areas of banking and securities.”
“Sir, responding to the various comments that have been made, may I start with Mr Chng Hee Kok and Prof. Chin Tet Yung's remarks on law reform. Firstly, let me say that different countries have diverse approaches to the way in which they undertake law reform. Some countries have more than one instrument of law reform. Some have, as Prof. Chin has said, a centralised body to undertake law reform. Whatever the approaches, I think we can agree that law reform is important in Singapore. By law reform, we need to be clear what we mean. It includes, first, the updating of laws, to make sure that they are not out of tune with latest developments in other jurisdictions. It also means examination of the laws to ensure that modern problems, previously not anticipated, are adequately dealt with under our laws information technology, the example that he mentioned is a good illustration. In Singapore, Prof. Chin is right that we do not have a centralised body. What is the present system? Our present system is that there is a Law Reform Committee under the Academy of Law. The Committee has inputs from the Attorney-General's Chambers as well as the Ministry of Law. The Ministry of Law acts, in effect, as a coordinating body, whether there are consultations needed with other Ministries or economic agencies, such as EDB, TDB and other agencies. The Ministry of Law, on its own, also initiates and embarks on law review and law reform processes. A good example is the recent exercise on intellectual property rights where we introduced fairly comprehensive amendments to the Copyright Act. And there is an on-going exercise to review trade marks, industrial designs, integrated circuits and so on.”
“Singapore shares the humanitarian concerns of the international community on the anti-personnel land mines (APLs) issue. We support efforts to find a lasting and effective solution to the problem. It is for this reason that in May 1996, Singapore announced a two-year export moratorium on APLs without self-neutralising or self-destructing devices. It was intended that this two-year moratorium period be used to review Singapore's position on APLs and to consider whether or not Singapore was in a position to sign the Ottawa Treaty. (This is the "Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpile, Production and Transfer of APLs and on Their Destruction" which was opened for signature in December last year). We are still studying the provisions of the Ottawa Treaty carefully, to see whether we can accede to it. We will consider signing the Treaty when we are certain that we can fully comply with all its provisions and obligations, taking into account our own defence and security needs. In the meanwhile, we have extended our two-year moratorium indefinitely to cover a ban on the export of all types of APLs, not just those without self-neutralising or self-destructing devices. GOVERNMENT COMPANIES 5. Mr J B Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Finance if he will furnish a schedule of all investments, acquisitions or takeovers made by Government-owned and Government-linked companies year by year, for the years 1988-1997, showing the investments, acquisitions or takeovers made by each company and the profits made or losses suffered by the company from the investments, acquisitions or takeovers.”
“Under the Singapore Technical Assistance Programme for Sustainable Development (STAPSD) referred to by the Member, Singapore has to date conducted 8 environment-related courses including urban management, water supply engineering, building services and environmental technology. A total of 130 Government officials from 28 developing countries from the Asia Pacific region, Africa and the Middle East have come to Singapore to attend these environment-related courses. ANTI-PERSONNEL LAND MINES 4. Mr Simon S C Tay asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether Singapore is actively considering acceptance of the recent international treaty to outlaw anti-personnel land mines and, if so, when it is likely to accede to the obligations of the treaty, and, if not, what are the reasons for not doing so.”