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 7 of 66.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in response to the Member, let me first say that although the United Kingdom and United States withdrew at that time, Singapore's decision to withdraw from UNESCO was based on our own assessment of the situation which, as I have said in my main answer, included several reasons. One of these reasons did relate to our assessment about reports on the management and the organisation at that time under the then Director. We would have to consider all these as we review, because there is now a new Director. The Director's name, a Japanese, is Koichiro Matsuura who, as far as I know, has taken significant steps in the reform of the organisation and its structure. But the main point I want to make is, if the United States and the United Kingdom have rejoined, it does not mean that we blindly follow their example. We have to do our own review and make a decision whether to rejoin UNESCO and decide also on the timing of rejoining, if that is the decision of our review. VICE DENS IN JUNGLE AREAS 22. Ms Indranee Rajah asked the Minister for Home Affairs what steps are being taken (a) to clear up vice dens in the jungle areas, such as the one near Woodlands Industrial Park E2, and specifically (b) to prevent young students from visiting such dens.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when Singapore terminated its membership of UNESCO on 31st December 1985, we did so for several reasons, which included the manner in which the rates of assessment for our contributions were calculated. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in consultation with our other agencies, has periodically reviewed the merits of re-joining UNESCO. Our last review was done in early 2000, and at that time, we concluded that there were no compelling reasons for us to rejoin UNESCO yet. However, let me assure the Member that we continue to keep an open mind, and do not rule out rejoining UNESCO. We are now in the midst of conducting another review on the issue. The Member asked about the conditions under which we will rejoin. The main consideration, of course, is whether it will advance our national interests.”
“On economic union, Madam, may I have your permission to call on Mr Raymond Lim to answer Mr Chiam See Tong's questions.”
“You all know that our preference was for the outstanding issues to be resolved through third party arbitration or adjudication. PM Abdullah preferred to give it another go and PM Goh agreed, but both understood that if this attempt did not succeed, then they will have to refer these to third parties. The understanding was that Malaysia, Prime Minister Abdullah would present new proposals direct to Prime Minister Goh. We have not yet received these proposals but, as you know, they are in the midst of elections and the position is that we will now wait for the proposals to come and when the proposals come, we will, of course, study them. That is where matters stand at present. Meanwhile, the atmospherics in our relations continue to improve. Ministers on both sides have exchanged visits. Minister Wong Kan Seng and Minister Mah Bow Tan, and the Malaysian Minister for Culture, Arts and Tourism have exchanged visits. The Malaysian Foreign Ministry has informed us that they want to resume the Wisma Putra-MFA games, and they are going to fix a date soon. These games were scheduled to be held sometime ago but had been called off. Dr Warren Lee made the point about whether the local people in various parts of Malaysia are familiar with Singapore's attitudes and whether Singaporeans should travel more and so on. I was not sure what is his specific proposal, but I am all in favour of greater people-to-people relationships, including contacts by Members of Parliament. And I do not think that Members of Parliament have to wait for a formal invitation from the other side. I would encourage such exchanges and visits at all levels, both parliamentary, Ministry officials as well as non-governmental organisations and businesses.”
“" The issue of trade statistics and discrepancies is part and parcel of normal relations between neighbours, and will be remedied over time. Members also asked about the sand issue. Madam, the Indonesian ban on the export of sand to Singapore, imposed in February last year, remains in force. However, the question of Singapore being "not cooperative" on the sand issue does not arise at all. As we have conveyed to the Indonesians, the Singapore Government is not involved in the sourcing and trading of sand. Sourcing is carried out by contractors on a purely commercial basis. We leave it to our contractors to source for sand from where it is available, on the basis of commercial viability. These contractors are also expected to comply with the laws of the countries they source sand from. Those who have accused Singapore on the sand issue have so far not furnished evidence that the sand from Indonesia has been smuggled in. Singapore does not condone the smuggling of any commodity. Our authorities will investigate possible instances thoroughly, if there is credible and timely evidence provided. But Singapore, on the other hand, cannot be expected to carry out the Customs work of another country. Mr Ravindran also asked about the levels of cooperation with Indonesia on terrorism. But, as we have heard in my answers on ASEAN, we do it on both bilateral fronts with countries as well as in regional and international framework. On Malaysia, many Members were very keen to know what has happened since I last briefed them, whether there have been proposals, whether the "low hanging fruits" have been plucked, and so on. I will not go into details to recap what I have told this House except to say that the atmospherics have improved as a result of the exchanges of visits recently.”
“This JCC will enable both sides to continue to explore areas for mutually-beneficial cooperation. The JCC will strengthen institutional linkages and enhance understanding between Singapore and Indonesia. Officials from both sides are now discussing the details of the JCC. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked about the trade statistics issue. Singapore published bilateral trade statistics between Singapore and Indonesia for the first time in January 2004. Prior to this, Singapore handed over trade statistics to the Indonesian government annually, in accordance with an agreement made in 1974 between the leaders of both sides. That was to avoid misunderstandings over the figures, as Indonesia and Singapore have different methods of compiling trade statistics. We told the Indonesians that we would have no problem if Indonesia chose to publish the statistics that we handed to them. And since 1974, Indonesia has chosen not to do so. Last year, the Indonesian government asked to end the 1974 agreement and asked Singapore to publicly release Singapore-Indonesia trade statistics. Our agencies are currently in the process of putting in place the appropriate systems and procedures to enable us to eventually publish Singapore-Indonesia statistics on the same basis as we do for trade statistics with other countries and in line with international requirements. This will take some time, about two years. In the interim, we decided to publish the Singapore-Indonesia trade statistics in its present form that we have been routinely handing over to the Indonesian government all these years. Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda welcomed this when he said: "I think the Singaporean decision is excellent as we can now start to remedy the discrepancies.”
“Madam, may I respond to Members who spoke on Indonesia and Malaysia. If I may, first, state Singapore-Indonesia relations. We attach great importance to our relationship with Indonesia. We have good relations with its leadership. Indonesia is one of Singapore's closest neighbours and a major trading partner and is also strategically important to the region.5.30 pm Since last year, several exchanges of visits have taken place. Prime Minister Goh met President Megawati in Batam on 4th August 2003 at the launch of the South Sumatra-Singapore natural gas pipeline. Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan visited Jakarta last December. More recently, Deputy Prime Minister Lee visited Jakarta from 26-28 January 2004. There have also been interactions by officials at various levels. Singapore hosted the 3rd MFA-DEPLU Dialogue last August, and Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda made a visit to Singapore on 11th September 2003. In answer to Mr Ravindran's question, yes, we do not just deal with the Jakarta government. Of course, in government-to-government relations, we have to. But we also have good contacts with journalists and parliamentarians who have come over, and also we have invited the leaders of the provinces to visit Singapore. Overall, the bilateral relationship is good and was affirmed by President Megawati when she met DPM Lee on 26th January 2004 and said that "there are no problems" on the bilateral front. Of course, as with any two neighbouring countries, there will always be outstanding bilateral issues that need to be resolved by both sides. Both leaders have agreed that Indonesia and Singapore should form a Joint Cooperation Council (JCC), a ministerial level forum, which will discuss both outstanding bilateral issues and areas of cooperation.”
“EU is keen to strengthen its ties with ASEAN through the Trans-Regional EU-ASEAN Trade Initiative or TREATI, which seeks to remove non-tariff barriers. South Korea recently announced its interest to explore closer economic cooperation, including the possibility of an ASEAN-ROK FTA. And our relations with China, Japan, Korea under the Plus 3 relationship have also considerably improved in substance. Mr Tan Soo Khoon asked about ASEAN-EU relations. He is right that at the last ASEAN-EU Foreign Ministers' Meeting, there were not many full Ministers in attendance. So his question was whether this means that the EU does not take the ASEAN-EU relationship seriously. I would not immediately jump to that conclusion because the EU Foreign Ministers explained to us their scheduling problems, the amount of meetings they have to attend. I am prepared to take their explanations in good faith. We have to wait for one or two meetings and see how it goes. ASEAN takes these meetings seriously, we have to impress on the Europeans to take these meetings seriously. There are some issues that continue to bedevil ASEAN-EU relationship, such as Myanmar. Our point to them is that they should not hold this important relationship, which is a long standing dialogue relationship, hostage to one issue. At the last ASEAN-EU Foreign Ministers' Meeting held in Brussels last year, the Europeans were agreeable to Myanmar being represented by its Deputy Foreign Minister. We will continue to engage with the Europeans because the relationship with the Europeans is one of the important dialogue relationships which ASEAN has. Madam, with your permission, I will ask Mr Raymond Lim to answer on technical assistance.”
“For example, on the ASEAN Peacekeeping Force idea, our view - shared by most other countries in ASEAN - is that for the time being, the peacekeeping force is probably not the right time - precisely because ASEAN is not a defence or security organisation. The ASC is a generally good and timely idea. It reflects a certain comfort level within ASEAN and comes at a time when ASEAN needs to rethink its role in the wider regional community. Together with the two other pillars- ASEAN Economic Community and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community - the ASC will complete the picture for ASEAN integration process. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked about the new ASEAN Secretary General, Mr Ong Keng Yong. I wish to stress that Mr Ong Keng Yong now is wearing a regional hat, and not a Singaporean hat. But I believe that he has helped to move ASEAN forward. His appointment comes at a time when the workload at ASEAN Secretariat has expanded a lot. It is a challenging task, but he has been very active and has put in place many measures to streamline the organisation. On ASEAN's external linkages, asked by Mr Ravindran and others, this is the other area where it has to be remained focused. We cannot be inward-looking. And here, we have achieved considerable progress. Let me list a few. Last year, India acceded to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. ASEAN and Russia had signed a Joint Declaration on Partnership for Peace, Security and Stability. Our closer economic partnerships with China and Japan have sparked off similar interest by many other countries. China is negotiating an FTA with ASEAN and Japan has signed a framework agreement on CEP. The United States is taking its first steps towards the possibility of FTAs with ASEAN members, through its Enterprise for ASEAN Initiative or EAI.”
“It is a Thai and Singapore innovation whereby ASEAN countries which are ready to liberalise certain sectors can do so bilaterally, without waiting for the others who can join in later. For example, the Cargo Open Skies Agreement signed on 25th February by Singapore, Thailand and Brunei. Mr Tan Soo Khoon posed a question as to whether this will be divisive for ASEAN. I think it will be divisive for ASEAN if others are excluded. But what this means is that you do not have to wait for everybody to be ready. Because if you are going to wait for everybody to be ready, then you will not have rapid movement. This way, countries who are ready can sign the accord but is open to others who can come on when they are ready. This approach is meant to be inclusive, not exclusive. A series of "2+X" knitted together will increase the pace of ASEAN economic integration. On ASEAN Security Community, which Ms Irene Ng asked about, let me say that the ASC's intention is to bring about ASEAN's political and security cooperation to a higher plane to ensure that the countries in the region live at peace with one another and with the world at large in a harmonious environment. Our clear understanding of ASC is that ASEAN countries adhere to the principles of non-intervention and the ability of each country to pursue its own foreign policy and defence policy. ASC is not intended to change the character of ASEAN which is not a defence or security organisation. We welcome Indonesia's Plan of Action for the ASC which was discussed at the recent retreat. Indonesia's Plan of Action contains bold and imaginative ideas on the ASC. However, we need to proceed in gradual steps, starting with the doable short-term projects before progressing to the more difficult or ambitious ideals.”
“More will be said about what is done on technical assistance when my colleague, Mr Raymond Lim, addresses the issue. On economic competitiveness, ASEAN has realised that we have to be competitive. The ASEAN Summit in Bali, as Mr Tan Soo Khoon mentioned, adopted Bali Concord II, which sets out three key pillars for ASEAN's move towards the ASEAN Vision 2020: (1) the ASEAN Economic Community; (2) ASEAN Security Community; and, (3) the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community. On the ASEAN Economic Community, Mr Tan Soo Khoon asked whether this would be only rhetoric. I think it is more than rhetoric. Because I have attended many FMs' meetings and, last year, was the first time the Foreign Ministers asked the consultants for ASEAN, McKensey, to attend the meeting and to give them a briefing on what ASEAN needs to do to stay competitive. In fact, not just the Economic Ministers' Meeting, but also the Foreign Ministers' Meeting. I think it was fairly unprecedented. The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) is a critical part of ASEAN's push towards greater economic integration. The aim is to create a single market and production space where there is free flow of goods, services, investments, capital and skilled labour. When realised, the AEC will make for a more competitive and dynamic ASEAN economic region. 5.15 pm AEC's first step is to further strengthen its current economic measures in the area of trade, goods and services. This includes putting in place a clear and definite work programme for the removal of all non-tariff trade barriers and establishing a non-politicised and legally-binding dispute settlement mechanism which will promote greater certainty and predictability in ASEAN's business environment. Mr Tan Soo Khoon also mentioned the "2+X" proposal.”
“They adopted a Joint Declaration spelling out concrete measures to combat SARS such as early warning systems, pre-screening at airports, information sharing and joint epidemiological surveillance activities. ASEAN Health Ministers then quickly followed up to implement what the Leaders had decided. Dr Warren Lee asked about the Avian flu. Similarly, with the emergence of the Avian flu, ASEAN Health Ministers and officials had come together again in Bangkok in January to share information and identify joint cooperative efforts to address the outbreak of the Avian flu. Separately, an ASEAN-China Forum held in Beijing in early March to address the same problem. We cannot preclude the possibility of the emergence of new diseases such as SARS and Avian flu. We cannot afford to let our guard down. ASEAN countries will continue to take a common approach to such regional problems that recognise no boundaries. Several Members have asked about the future directions and agenda of ASEAN. Apart from terrorism and SARS, I would say that ASEAN continues to be focused on two important tasks. One important task is to achieve deeper integration between the older and newer ASEAN members. The second is to continue to strengthen ASEAN's linkages with key external players. Let me first address the task of closer integration. ASEAN countries have realised that in an increasingly globalised world, we need to remain engaged and stay ahead of the curve. How are we to do this? Obviously, ASEAN needs to get our act together to stay unified and focussed on the approaches we need to take. The Initiative for ASEAN Integration, Prime Minister Goh's initiative, has now become the key to achieve deeper integration between the older and newer ASEAN members.”
“If I have to be honest, I cannot guarantee that these documents will lead to practical action. But they are important in the sense that they enable the Home Ministers and officials to meet and discuss key information and how to get their enforcement agencies to cooperate. And this is very important because we are dealing with a new area where agencies have not had the habit of regional meetings. But, in the end, in reply to Ms Irene Ng, let me say that the nature of international terrorism itself ,although we have these ASEAN and regional meetings and declarations, is such that international cooperation will be meaningless unless every country shows political will and resolve to take the necessary action within their countries. So, there are two sides of it. On the one hand, each country cannot combat terrorism on its own without international cooperation; on the other hand, it is equally true that international cooperation is premised on each country taking the necessary steps within its borders. Ms Irene Ng and Dr Ong Chit Chung talked about the recent news of the reduction by an Indonesian court's verdict on Abu Bakar Bashir. I have to say that we are disappointed with the Indonesian Supreme Court's decision as reported in the media. Despite the Court's decision, it is our hope that the Indonesian government will continue to take strong action against the terrorist groups. In the area of SARS, ASEAN had acted particularly well. ASEAN speedily coordinated a regional response by convening the Special ASEAN Leaders' Meeting on SARS attended by all 10 ASEAN leaders. In fact, since 1967, it was the first occasion when the leaders in the region have come together to address a serious regional health threat.”
“ASEAN also intensified its efforts to prevent, counter and suppress the activities of terrorist groups in the region. ASEAN also underlined the need to maintain practical cooperative measures among itself and with the international community. Ms Irene Ng asked about the ARF, whether it has a role in counter terrorism. ASEAN's efforts are strongly supplemented by ongoing cooperation within ASEAN Regional Forum. ARF has had a series of practical workshops allowing ARF members to exchange best practices in various sub-fields of counter terrorism, such as measures against terrorist financing, prevention of terrorism, measures for major international events, border controls and responses to chemical/biological/radiological attacks. I will not under-estimate the importance of these, because some ARF countries have got the skills, experience, and knowledge than other ASEAN countries. The ASEAN Home and Interior Ministers also had their Special Meeting on Transnational Crime and Terrorism in May 2002 and decided on concrete measures centred on enhancing practical cooperation among our law enforcement and security agencies, including sharing of intelligence, technical expertise and best practices. There was also a follow-up meeting on Transnational Crime in Bangkok in January 2004 where we signed the ASEAN-China MOU on Cooperation in the Field of Non-Traditional Security Issues. The ASEAN-India Joint Declaration for Cooperation to Combat International Terrorism was adopted at the Bali Summit in October 2003. I believe that the practical cooperation between countries is the most effective means of achieving tangible progress in countering terrorism. The question was asked: are all these conferences, accords and agreements all just meaningless documents?”
“But despite these daunting challenges, I believe ASEAN has worked quite well and responded in a decisive and determined way. We also recently had a retreat of Foreign Ministers. This retreat, for Members' benefit, is unlike other ASEAN meetings, it is just the Ministers only without officials plus the ASEAN Secretary-General. So, it enables us to have very frank and candid discussions. The concept of a retreat was, in fact, started by Singapore some time ago. And we had a very frank discussion on a wide variety of ongoing ASEAN projects. I say that ASEAN is not a lame duck, and ASEAN has worked together, because it continues to be focused on two important tasks. One is closer integration and the second is enhancing our linkages with external players. Both of these are areas where Members have spoken on. Why do I say that we have worked well? Mr Tan Soo Khoon asked a pertinent question - whether we have got our act together or is ASEAN still drifting aimlessly. There are two important accomplishments of ASEAN in the last year which give me hope and make me confident in saying that ASEAN is showing some resolve in tackling its problems. One is the way in which ASEAN responded to terrorism, and that is the point which Ms Irene Ng has asked. And the other is the way in which ASEAN dealt with SARS and, more recently, the Avian flu. This showed ASEAN has worked well and responded in a decisive and determined manner. First, let me take terrorism. At the 9th ASEAN Summit in Bali on 7th October 2003, ASEAN leaders agreed to continue to undertake and build on specific measures outlined in the ASEAN Declaration on Joint Action to Counter Terrorism, which was adopted in Brunei in November 2001.”
“Madam, I want to thank the speakers who have made many observations and questions on so many countries. Mr Chandra Mohan wants us to increase our linkages with other countries and asked how many ambassadors, and consuls we have. If you look at the United Nations' list there are some 180 countries in the world. It is physically not possible for a small country like Singapore to have embassies and representatives in every country. So we have to improvise. In some places, we cover with non-resident Ambassadors from Singapore. In some places, we have to use honorary Consuls. In some places, we do not have any representative at all. But it does not mean that we do not try to reach out to them, either through visits or receiving visits from them, or working with their Ambassadors who may be accredited to us. So, it requires quite a lot of imaginative ways to create space for us in our foreign relations, and we will continue to do so.5.00 pm Madam, with your permission, I would like to answer and reply to colleagues in the House who have asked about ASEAN. Thereafter, my colleague, Minister of State Raymond Lim, will answer on the questions about technical assistance and assistance to other countries. Again, with your permission, I would like the floor again to answer on Malaysia and Indonesia. Thereafter, my colleague, the Second Minister will answer the remaining comments. On ASEAN, Dr Ong Chit Chung asked: is ASEAN a lame duck? In my view, it is not a lame duck. But it is true that last year had been a very difficult year for ASEAN when it was buffeted by so many challenges - the war in Iraq, terrorist threats, the SARS outbreak and, more recently, the Avian flu.”
“It is too simplistic to see unilateralism and multilateralism as mutually exclusive alternatives. There is no country that allows its vital security interest to be held hostage to multilateral process, if it had a choice. And no country equally, however powerful, that will not submit to multilateral processes if that is the best way to advance its interests. And indeed it is good that the United Nations now, with encouragement from the United States, is exploring a renewed role in Iraq. 4.15 pm In conclusion, let me say that this year will present new challenges and opportunities in our foreign relations. My Ministry will continue to work to strengthen and consolidate our bilateral relations with all our key partners and countries in the region. The challenge is to continue the momentum of broadening our ties and linkages with these countries and enhance our multi-faceted relations. ASEAN”
“Libya has come clean and has given up its WMD programme. Pakistan has begun to cooperate in investigations about the spread of nuclear weapon technology. All these developments make the world and our region safer. So when Dr Ong and Irene Ng asked these questions about our position, I ask, "Are these not developments in our national interest?" The answer is, "They are." And I do not believe that North Korea would have gone back to the six-party talks had not the United States' resolve been made so manifestly clear in Iraq. Does anyone seriously believe that all these developments would have happened if the United States had not stayed the course in Iraq? A rhetorical question but I would answer, "That was the key factor." Prevention of WMD proliferation is of prime concern to Singapore. We must do our part in global counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism efforts. We have tightened up our export control regime and we are expanding and deepening cooperation with other countries to take action against WMD proliferation. Sir, last year, we intercepted several shipments of items that could have been used in the manufacture of chemical weapons or missiles. Some companies have been prosecuted for breaking our export control laws. We will continue to exercise great vigilance and work with other countries to curb this threat. And to this end, as Members may know, Singapore recently joined the Proliferation Security Initiative as a member of its core group. Before I conclude, Sir, I have not forgotten Ms Irene Ng's point about unilateralism. Sir, we wish that we lived in a perfect international system where there are neat and cut and dried solutions. But, unfortunately, the world is a massive place.”
“If, after all that was said and because of the opposition it faced at the Security Council, if the United States had not acted, and when it acted, found itself abandoned by all its friends, extremists all around the world would have been emboldened. So, like all countries, Singapore had to decide whether or not to support the United States. There was no room for ambiguity. We could not, as a reader mentioned in that Straits Times' poll referred to by Dr Ong, just send a quiet note of support - anonymous. Singapore has long publicly spoken about how important and irreplaceable a role the United States plays in the world and in our region. Now what is the point of professing friendship if we do not act on what we say when our support is needed? It was and it remains in our interest to match our words with deeds. Otherwise, how can we, as a country, be credible? Sir, the failure to find WMD in Iraq has, of course, raised serious questions about intelligence failures. Both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have launched investigations into why their intelligence agencies did not get it right. But regardless of what these investigations finally conclude, the global threat of WMD proliferation is real. There is no doubt about that. It must always be a real concern to a small densely populated country like Singapore. The nexus between WMD proliferation and terrorism is of greater worry. Last year, SARS gave us just a small foretaste, a sample, of what a biological or chemical attack might be like. Therefore, we cannot take any chances when it comes to our security. Let me make another point, Sir. The war in Iraq has already had salutary effects on the struggle to curb WMD proliferation. Iran has begun to cooperate with the IAEA.”
“There is no doubt that Iraq had been in material breach of many United Nations Security Council resolutions for many years. In fact, Iraq was unique in its consistent defiance of the UN Security Council resolutions. With its abysmal record, what reason was there to suspect that Saddam Hussein will not resume his "cat and mouse" game that he had played so many years with the UN weapons inspectors once the threat of military action had passed? Was it an acceptable risk? Sir, after 911, it was clear to all that the global security environment had undergone a fundamental structural change. The possibility of terrorists gaining control of WMD was no longer an acceptable risk, not just to the United States, but to every responsible member of the international community, including Singapore. Once the United States had decided, it was no longer prepared to tolerate even the slightest possibility of threat from Saddam Hussein and was determined to ensure its own security by removing him, the creditability of the United States' resolve then became the key factor in our calculation of national interest. Sir, one of the most important international issues we will have to deal with for many years is terrorism. International terrorist networks are deeply embedded in South East Asia. It will take many years to root them out. Until they are rooted out, Singapore will be at risk, and the risks, I must add, existed well before we took a position in support of the United States on Iraq. We cannot deal with the terrorist threat alone. The struggle against terrorism is and will be a global one, and only the United States has the capability to lead it. This is why we supported the United States on Iraq.”
“Both Dr Ong Chit Chung and Ms Irene Ng talked about Iraq - on our position and Dr Ong asked if we are too pro-US. Sir, while we look forward to further significant enhancements of our relationship with the United States this year, I am aware of the points made by Dr Ong. I am aware that some Singaporeans seem a little uncomfortable with our close relationship with the United States. Dr Ong referred to the opinion poll done by the Straits Times in April last year where some respondents feared reprisal for Singapore's open support for the United States on Iraq. I recall that some asked, "Why not stay neutral?" I think some also suggested, instead of making a public stand, why not just drop them a quiet note saying that, "We support you - good luck." But, Sir, when news broke out that we were deploying SAF assets to Iraq, some Singaporeans have expressed concern about the dangers. Now that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are being questioned on the failure to find WMD in Iraq, I can see that some Singaporeans may well wonder whether our position in Iraq was wrong. Were we, as Dr Ong has asked, too pro-US? Sir, I do not think that our position was wrong. We do not think that we were too pro-US. In fact, this is the wrong way to try to understand this. Let me reiterate the key points that I made in last year's Committee of Supply debate when this issue came up. I said that we are not pro-US, we are not anti-any country. What we are is that we are pro-Singapore in the sense that, ultimately, what guides us in our foreign policy is our national interest. And that remains our fundamental approach, not just on the Iraq issue, but on any other issue. Much of what I said on Iraq last year remains valid.”
“But, Sir, I think I should spend a little bit more time on our relations with the United States because Dr Ong and Ms Irene Ng have asked about it. Sir, I would say our relations with United States have never been better. This does not mean that we will agree with the United States on every issue. Neither does it mean that we do not value our relationship with other major powers. We do not see our relationship with the United States as a zero sum game with our relationships with other major powers, and we do not think that even the closest of friends must be obliged to agree with each other on every issue. Last year, I pointed out that our stand on Palestine, Myanmar, cloning are examples of issues where we do not agree with the United States. But, Sir, the relationship we have with the United States is certainly unique, given the United States' position in the international system. Strategically and economically, as a force for stability, as a major trading partner and as a source of investments, technology and know-how, the United States is of central importance to Singapore, as it is to many other countries in our region. Last year, we concluded the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (USSFTA) which is now in force. This has added an important new dimension to our relationship. We saw the USSFTA as not merely of bilateral significance but also as a means of anchoring the United States in our entire region. And we are happy to note, Sir, that several other South East Asian countries are now seeking FTAs or other trade agreements with the United States. So it has had a catalytic effect. This is a welcome development because we regard them as building blocks towards an eventual ASEAN-US FTA.”
“There is much that Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia cooperating with one another and ASEAN countries can achieve. Other neighbours, with Thailand, our relations have increased substantially in recent years. Prime Minister Goh has developed excellent working relations with Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Both sides have adopted a pragmatic approach to issues, such as our approach towards reinvigorating ASEAN through intensifying economic integration, such as the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) and the "2+X" initiative. Our officials have regular exchanges at various bilateral fora, such as STEER (Singapore-Thailand Enhanced Economic Relationship) and the Civil Service Exchange Programme (CSEP). On Vietnam, our relations have strengthened over the past year and have been given a boost with Prime Minister Goh's informal visit to Vietnam in March last year and Prime Minister Phan Van Khai's visit to Singapore this week. We have just signed the Joint Declaration on Long-term and Comprehensive Cooperation Framework for 21st Century this week. The two countries have continued to make important strides in economic cooperation. EDB and the Vietnamese Ministry of Planning and Investment have signed a Memorandum of Agreement in October last year to promote third country investments to both Singapore and Vietnam. The Vietnam-Singapore Commission of Cooperation (VSCC), a ministerial level economic coordination mechanism, was reinstituted last year to promote economic cooperation. And our relations with other ASEAN countries and neighbours are also excellent. We have stepped up our interactions with Cambodia, Laos, Brunei, helping us to consolidate and expand our linkages with these ASEAN countries.”
“Both Beijing and Washington understand that it is in their interest to have good relations with each other. Some degree of competition, of course, between the United States and China may be inevitable, but conflict between them is certainly not inevitable. The very complexity of US-China relations and the multi-dimensional nature require an effort by both sides to balance and reconcile different perspectives and to achieve equilibrium. This calms all of East Asia. Turning to South East Asia, ASEAN is slowly emerging from its trials and tribulations in the last few years. We are not out of the woods yet, Sir. But the Bali Summit last year took certain critical decisions which set new directions for ASEAN. Foremost amongst these was an endorsement of the ASEAN economic community as a goal. I will speak more about ASEAN when Members speak on their cuts later. On Malaysia and Indonesia, both are having elections soon. For Malaysia, let me just say at this stage that the atmospherics of our relations with Malaysia have improved markedly following Prime Minister Badawi's visit to Singapore on 12th January; and visit of Prime Minister Goh and several of the Cabinet Ministers to Johor on 24th January for the Chinese New Year celebrations at the invitation of Prime Minister Abdullah; and the return visit of Prime Minister Abdullah and his Cabinet members the next day at the invitation of the Prime Minister. 4.00 pm On Indonesia, our relationship with Indonesia remains strong. Of course, any relationship of close interdependence would never be problem-free. What is important is not to let the problems overshadow common interest and the potential for mutually beneficial cooperation as sovereign equals.”
“Now they have taken various steps to restore normal relations and dialogue has been re-established at the summit level. This is good for the region and, hopefully, will remove a potential flashpoint. Singapore has good relations with both India and Pakistan, and we are happy to note these recent positive developments. South Asia's great economic potential can be fully realised only when there is stability between India and Pakistan Dr Ong Chit Chung referred to cross strait relations. Indeed, cross strait relations perhaps pose the greatest risk of miscalculation. It would prove particularly sensitive in view of the elections in Taiwan. The decision in Taiwan to hold a referendum on 20th March has raised regional concerns. Our concern is that the timing of the referendum could increase the risk of misunderstanding and miscalculation by either side leading to a mishap which indeed would be tragic. Singapore's position on China has been clear and consistent, most recently stated by Prime Minister Goh on 11th December 2003 following the ASEAN-Japan Commemorative Summit in Tokyo, when he reiterated that Singapore's policy is for one China. We do not support independence for Taiwan. As a small country, our concern is with regional stability and for the status quo to be maintained. We therefore view with concern any move that may upset the status quo like holding a referendum in Taiwan. That remains our position and we note that similar statements have been made by several other countries, amongst them Japan, United States and several ASEAN countries. Sir, US-China relations are stable. It is clear that while neither side will compromise its fundamental interests, neither wants Taiwan to destabilise their relationship if this can be avoided.”
“Prime Minister's visit last November ensured continuity in our bilateral ties with the new leadership there. We will continue to broaden our contacts with the new leadership. And an outcome of Prime Minister's visit last year was a decision to institutionalise our bilateral ties through a joint council on bilateral cooperation (JCBC) which will be chaired at the DPM level but directed by the Prime Ministers. This first meeting of the JCBC will be convened in May this year. On the economic front, after the conclusion of the negotiations on goods for the ASEAN-China FTA by June this year, both sides would begin negotiations for a bilateral FTA. I said there are potential problem areas. This shows that not everything is well. There are three potential conflicts that can threaten geopolitical equilibrium - North Korea, India/Pakistan conflict and cross strait relations. It will not be easy to find clear or definitive solutions to these thorny issues. There are seldom clear solutions to most international problems, but I think all three conflicts can and are being managed. On North Korea, last year, I expressed Singapore's concern over the situation in the Korean Peninsula, and North Korea's attempts to acquire nuclear weapons. It is clearly in our interest and the region's interest to see stability in the Korean Peninsula, so that the strategic balance in the Asia Pacific region is stable and no regional arms race is triggered off. So, I am glad that the six-party talks will continue. These talks are a vital mechanism for managing the situation in the Korean Peninsula. On India/Pakistan, I think a new opportunity for rapprochement between India and Pakistan has opened up. These two nuclear states came close to another war not long ago.”
“Other major powers may be uncomfortable with the United States' pre-eminence. But they still want the best possible relationship they can have with the United States. The simple reason for this is that they know that there is no major international issue that can be resolved without the cooperation of the United States, and none of them, singly or a combination, can challenge the United States' pre-eminence. At the same time, all the major powers are trying to stabilise their relations with each other, at least partially, because they understand that this puts them in a better position to cope with the geopolitical realities of the post-cold war period. Dr Ong Chit Chung mentioned East Asia. In East Asia, the strategic triangle of the United States-China-Japan relations, which is the foundation for regional growth and prosperity, is also stable. At the same time, China's relationship with India, Japan's relationship with South Korea, and China's relationship with Japan, while not free of difficulties, are all distinctly improving and this is something we should welcome. On China, I would like to make the observation that geoeconomics is becoming as important as geopolitics. All of East Asia has made a fundamental political choice to fulfill national aspirations through market and trade, and not war. China is always central in this. A changing China is forcing change throughout Asia and beyond. China is important to Singapore and the region. China's decision to seek an FTA with ASEAN was the catalyst that led to Japan, India and South Korea also wanting to engage ASEAN more deeply. China has a major global and regional role and it is increasingly important as an economic partner. Sir, our relations with China are excellent.”
“Sir, I will reply to Dr Ong Chit Chung who has asked for my reading of the strategic landscape and also the comments that he and Ms Irene Ng have made. On the strategic review, as I survey the region and the world today, I think there are areas of serious concern, not only for the region and the world but, by and large, I think international relations are essentially stable. In saying this, I am not suggesting that there are no conflicts or problem areas, actual or potential. Of course, there are. Terrorism continues to be of serious concern, as speakers have mentioned - witness the attacks in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and closer to home, in Indonesia and Thailand. The prospect of terrorists getting hold of WMD is a great worry to all of us. New kinds of transnational challenges, such as pandemic diseases and piracy, also confront us. But what I mean by stability is geopolitical stability. Sir, relations among the major powers are in equilibrium. Most conflicts do not threaten this equilibrium. Moreover, many of the challenges the world faces today present opportunities for countries to work together to tackle them. My conclusion is that although there are potential problem areas, overall, the world is stable. In fact, I cannot easily recall any other period in modern history when the threat of serious conflicts between major powers has been so low. Let me explain. Members referred to the United States and I agree with them that the key geopolitical fact of the post- cold war period is the pre-eminence of the United States. This does not mean the United States will always get its way- it is clearly facing serious difficulties in Iraq - but America faces no credible challenge to its global geopolitical position.”
“When a neighbour is determined enough to go to court, it is likely that any referral to a CMC may fail, as parties at that time may be past talking about their dispute. We should consider giving such powers to mediators to see whether they can perform an administrative tribunal or quasi-judicial function in settling such disputes. At the same time, perhaps it is time to merge the settling of small commercial claims with that of the CMCs. There may no longer be any need for the role of the Small Claims Tribunal as such. The Ministry can therefore make better use of resources once they merge CMCs with the Small Claims Tribunal and set up, what I would call, "Community Dispute Settlement Centres" (CDSC).”
“Firstly, I have never declined to receive comments and suggestions from the Law Society on specific legislation, where it concerns the legal profession. In fact, I have always advised the Attorney-General to consult the Law Society on any legislative changes which affect the legal profession, and I will continue to do so. Secondly, I realise that in some specific legal areas, there are lawyers who are specialists and experts in various areas of law whose input can be very useful. Therefore, we have never hesitated to consult the Law Society where the views of these specialists and experts can be valuable. I will give you two recent examples: Land Titles (Amendment) Act in 2003 to introduce electronic lodgment of documents, and the recent amendments to the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act in 2003. And I will continue to do so. But, that is different from what Mr Chandra Mohan wants me to do - to amend the Legal Profession Act so that we can go back to the days of the 80s where the Law Society behaved like a political pressure group. The answer to that is no. Community Mediation Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, I will deal with the issue of Community Mediation. Recently, the law was amended to confer a power on Magistrates to refer neighbour disputes to Community Mediation Centres, even if one of the parties does not consent. This is a bold move, and one, may I add, that makes mediation a form of dispute settlement somewhat more difficult. Non-consensual mediation does not often result in agreement. If we want to extend powers in this fashion, is it not time to extend the role of CMCs as well - to be a quasi-judicial in its approach - to empower mediators to issue, if necessary, administrative orders that would ensure peace and harmony in the neighbourhood?”
“Second, to develop capability through improving the provision of continuing legal education. This, of course, the Law Society and the profession must take the lead. Third, to market our legal services abroad and to enlarge the playing field for our lawyers. I think this is one of the points touched by Mr Chandra Mohan. We will do our best to create as many opportunities as possible for our lawyers, but the lawyers and law firms also have to do their part in promoting and selling their services. On the final point, Mr Chandra Mohan refers to section 38(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act. Many were not in this House when that section was amended in 1986. Let me recall that in 1986, we amended the Legal Profession Act (section 38(1)(c)) to make clear that where the section said that the Law Society is to assist the Government - one of the functions is to assist the Government - in all matters affecting legislation, we made it clear that it is legislation submitted to it. And that amendment was, in fact, restoring the language which had been there previously. Why did we amend in 1986? We did it because the then Law Society Council engaged in politicking and confronting the Government under the guise of assisting the Government. Now, Mr Chandra Mohan wants us to remove those words. Let me say I do not intend to do that. I do not see how it is affecting the dignity of lawyers if the Law Society Council does not have a carte blanche to make comments on all legislation . I do not see how the Law Society can claim a special statutory right which other societies do not have, as a body to make pronouncements on all legislation. Having said that, let me make two points, Sir.”
“I will not go into the details of the scheme which has been publicised. Let me say I also had a working lunch recently with the President of the Law Society and its key council members. They are clearly concerned with the problem, and I believe that they know that the profession itself has to take the lead in policing such delinquent lawyers. As to Prof. Chin's suggestion of doing another study, we have just done a comprehensive study on the legal profession and I do not think it is a great mystery as to why lawyers are leaving the legal profession. I touched on it last year. Various reasons were given - stress, they want something else, they want to do non-legal work, and so on. Many of the factors why they leave are not peculiar to the legal profession. It is reflective of modern Singapore. It affects other sectors of work and it is also reflective of the younger generation where changing a job after a while is nothing unusual. But we must ensure that there is a critical core of good legal talent in the legal profession. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair] 5.20 pm Prof. Chin has asked how we can assist lawyers in weathering the storm of fiercer competition. I mentioned last year that we have accepted the recommendations of the Legal Services Working Group, chaired by Mr Shanmugam and Solicitor-General, Mr Chan Seng Onn. My Ministry oversees and coordinates the implementation of the Working Group's recommendations through a Legal Services Inter-agency Committee. This Inter-Agency Committee has mapped out a 3-pronged strategy to drive the development of the Legal Services sector. I should mention that, first, we intend to promote Singapore as an alternative dispute resolution centre in the region, focusing primarily on international arbitration.”
“Let me say that this is not the case and the Official Assignee always makes it a point to let those who approach the Official Assignee with such an intention that he disabuses them of it. Let me move on to the legal profession on the comments made by Prof. Chin and Mr Chandra Mohan. On errant lawyers, I fully share the concerns of Prof. Chin. Here, I want to say that I fully agree with the concerns of the Chief Justice made in his remarks at the opening of the Legal Year, about lawyers absconding with clients' money. Of course, when we view the number of people involved, in the context of the total number of lawyers in the profession, one could say that it is a small minority, and it is a small minority. But, unfortunately, this small minority gives the entire profession a very bad name and public trust and confidence in the legal profession is undermined. So, there is a public interest which is very important to protect. Like the Chief Justice, I prefer that the Law Society takes decisive measures to deal with this. I think it is better that the Society takes such sensible and responsible preventive measures instead of the Government having to step in and legislate, which we will, if the need arises and if the Society and the profession themselves fail to do. So I am glad, and I support the efforts of the Law Society to curb this problem. You have read in the newspapers that the Law Society would have enacted measures last year, if not for opposition from a small group. But the Law Society now has, in fact, settled on the amendments to the Solicitors' Accounts Rules. They were approved by the Chief Justice on 3rd March 2004 and the Society will gazette the amendments to come into force on 1st April 2004.”
“It is a delicate balance between the interest of society in allowing bankrupts a second chance and the creditors who like a robust system to ensure maximum repayment. Of course, too liberal a bankruptcy regime will erode creditors' right whereas too rigid a regime will prevent bankrupts from making a fresh start. What I want to stress is that our system does not allow any bankrupts an automatic free passage out of bankruptucy. The Official Assignee has the discretion to discharge only deserving bankrupts who have cooperated fully with him. We do treat cooperative bankrupts differently from those who are not cooperative. That must be so. So we have moved away sometime ago from the one-size-fits-all approach to bankruptcy administration. We categorise bankrupts who are cooperative and have a certain track, which we call the "green zone" where they are subject to less restrictions and greater incentives for them to be cooperative and pay as much as they can. Uncooperative and recalcitrant bankrupts are categorised differently and they are put on a track called "red zone", where they are subject to more rigorous checks and closer monitoring, with the view to make sure that they do not believe that bankruptcy is a reward and a complete fool-proof way out of paying their debts. 5.15 pm Yes, we recognise there is a rising trend in the number of debtors applying to the courts, on their own accord, to declare themselves bankrupt. Many of these self-petition bankrupts, Sir, act under the mistaken, and it is a mistaken, impression that by declaring themselves as bankrupts they would not have to repay their debts and would get an automatic discharge after three years.”
“Statistics from 1996 show that some 90% of the bankruptcies from that period onwards are consumer bankrupticies arising mainly from the use of credit cards or credit facilities. The balance 10% are business bankruptcies. The reasons for the bankruptcies of different individuals are not easy to generalise and I would not conclude, as Mr Yatiman suggests, that all this is because of less than desirable lifestyle. Different people have different problems. Yes, some have not been able to manage their affairs and some have over-spent, and so on. I do not know about the example when he asked the question how an individual, earning $3,500, has so many credit cards and can chalk up $80,000 or so. We will have to ask him, and his creditors will be better able to explain. But hopefully, with the setting up of the Credit Bureau, financial institutions can make better decisions in future on whether to extend credit or not to individuals and how much credit to give. Also, I cannot off-hand tell him about the case of the celebrity, a professional whom he mentioned. If he wishes to pursue that, he can deal with that by filing a Question here. The thrust of what Prof. Chin and Mr Yatiman have said really raises the question whether we need to change our bankruptcy law. I do not think it is a question of amending the bankruptcy law. It is how we administer the bankruptcy laws, ie, what sort of policies. Let me say that our approach to bankruptcies is to try to strike a balance between satisfying the legitimate interest of investors and creditors who naturally want to recover debts owed to them and, on the other hand, ensuring that we do not stifle entrepreneurship.”
“It is because some of these companies may not be familiar to do what is necessary to protect and exploit the intellectual assets that IPOS formed an IP taskforce to help them understand how the field of IP is evolving and how they can take advantage of upcoming enhancements through Singapore's IP regime. The IP taskforce comprises business associations, such as the Association of Small and Medium Enterprise, the Singapore Business Federation and other organisations. As regards the enhancement to the IP regime which I have mentioned, they will be introduced in this House in the coming months. I will not go into detail right now but to give you a few examples. One, we will strengthen our patent regime to protect bio-inventions and related R&D, specifically our patent legislation for bio-inventions like pharmaceuticals will be strengthened to recognise the significant investment and efforts required to develop pharmaceutical products. Also, we will encourage companies to explore more innovative ways to distinguish their products and their brands. For example, I am sure many of us recognise familiar sounds, such as Nokia's - which we occasionally hear in this Chamber - and Yahoo Yodel. These are examples of sound marks which are another form of trademark. We intend to table amendments to our law to give recognition to distinctive non-visual marks which will include sound marks. On bankruptcy, Sir, I understand the points that Prof. Chin and Mr Yatiman have made. But before I go into our approach on bankrupticies, they asked for an update on bankruptcies. Sir, as at December 2003, we have about 18,600 undischarged bankrupts in Singapore. Mr Yatiman is quite correct.”
“The whole idea of this is to conduct many seminars, some 33 or so seminars and discussions, and they have been able to reach out to more than 3,000 people. I should also add that the IP Academy was launched last year. This was very timely because we have been able to train IT professionals and businessmen. They have conducted some 18 or so training programmes, which have covered over 1,400 participants. And to reach out to the younger group, IPOS targets educational institutions and has conducted some 60 events with secondary schools and polytechnics. Prof. Chin has made an important point in asking whether we take into account Singapore's stage of development when we draft legislation or enhance existing IP legislation. The answer is yes, we do. We recognise that, precisely because of the recent difficult conditions, our businesses may not be fully able to invest in building up their IP capabilities. On the other hand, we have to recognise that we operate in a very globalised economy and our businesses rely heavily on the external markets. Many of these markets have developed sophisticated IP regimes and their companies employ very savvy IP strategies. Therefore, to succeed, Sir, Singapore companies must be able to operate in these countries which are very advanced in their stage of IP development, for example, United States. It represents an important market for many of our companies and to succeed in the US, they have no choice but learn how to navigate the IP regime in the United States. This is a key priority for IPOS.”
“Tommy Koh, as we know, acted as the Agent before the Tribunal. Our Attorney-General personally represented Singapore, backed by an able team of lawyers. And now Second Deputy Secretary in MND, Mrs Cheong Koon Hean, acted as the Advocate. In addition, we have never hesitated to use the services of well-known international lawyers and experts. I should add that we also plan ahead. Prof. Chin is right that we must develop the expertise in this area, and Attorney-General's Chambers' International Affairs Department does that. But there is also scope for other agencies, like the Faculty of Law. I know they have been improving their international law capabilities and competence and more subjects are being taught in that area. I am told that a specialised Master of Laws degree in International and Comparative Law is being offered in the Faculty. To sum up, I am satisfied that the Government, through the AG and other agencies, are fully equipped to deal with the two current issues and we will have the capability to deal with any other future international legal litigation when it comes up. On intellectual property, I take Prof. Chin's point that it is important to put in place capabilities to help our companies create and exploit IP. That is, in fact, the key priority of the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) which has organised many events to deepen the business community's appreciation of IP issues. It has partnered relevant bodies to bring across customised IP messages to different audiences. These partners include the Singapore Business Federation, the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce, European Patent Office, Japan Patent Office.”
“Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. I will first take Prof. Chin's points on legal expertise and international disputes. I wish to make three points. First, I would like to assure him and Members of the House that we take all these international legal proceedings and adjudications seriously because we attach importance to observance of international law. Let me say that we have excellent teams to deal with these issues, whether it is the Pedra Branca issue before the ICJ or reclamation before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Not only the AG's Chambers have a specialist unit in their International Affairs Division, but they have also enlisted the services of international lawyers and experts. The second point I want to make is that to deal with these international cases, we not only need just good legal minds, but we also need the services of an array of people in other areas, ie, experts in allied subjects. For reclamation, we will need experts, for example, currents velocity and so on. Thirdly, it is not just the Ministry of Law, Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Attorney-General's Chambers, but many Government agencies have to be involved. I am glad to say that, having observed this first-hand, I am very satisfied with the way in which the different Government agencies are pulling together. If I may give an example. In the preparation for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) when Malaysia took us to international litigation on our reclamation, there was a true team Singapore effort by all the different agencies. The Attorney-General's Chambers, the Ministry of Law, the Ministry of National Development, URA, ENV and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs worked very closely as a team in the national interest. Prof.”
“I know that the Prime Minister is satisfied that the Chief Justice is medically fit, otherwise the Prime Minister would not have recommended to the President to have the Chief Justice's appointment renewed after he had reached retirement age. Why has the Prime Minister advised the President to renew the Chief Justice's appointment? The answer is simple: because he has done an excellent job and has transformed the Singapore Judiciary really to what it is today. And I would advise Mr Low Thia Khiang to read what the Senior Minister said in his book "From Third World to First": "Yong Pung How turned out to be an outstanding Chief Justice. He gave leadership to the judges and set a high tone for the Bar. By 1999, the reputation of our courts brought visits by judges and Chief Justices from developing as well as developed countries to study his reorganisation ... The World Bank recommended the Singapore system, both at High Court and Subordinate Court levels, for other countries to learn from." So long as he is able to continue doing this excellent job, I am not surprised that the Prime Minister had recommended that the Chief Justice continues. But let me say that Mr Low Thia Khiang should look at other jurisdictions like the US Supreme Court where the average age of the judges is 70 years, and their Chief Justice is 80 years old. By comparison, our Chief Justice is quite young. But the point is that there is renewal and self-renewal. The average age of our Bench in the Supreme Court is 55.8 years, compared to 70 in the US, 62 in Canada, and 64 in Australia. So, we are doing quite well.”
“No, because the system works. As to privatising cases, that is an interesting proposition. But it is one that has considerable implications. If he meant to say that some of the workload can be reduced by having arbitration of cases, I would agree, because we do want to position Singapore as an international arbitration centre. And if parties choose not to litigate but send the cases to arbitration, they are perfectly free to do so. In fact, we encourage arbitration, both domestic and international. 4.45 pm As to the new Supreme Court, I do not have all the figures with me on the cost but, as to when it is going to be ready, I believe the construction is slated to be completed in 2005. I do not have the details of the construction cost, but I do know that substantial savings were made after a very careful review of the procedures and, as a result of the cost-cutting exercise, I think 6.7% or some $17 million of the construction cost was saved. The plans for the new Subordinate Courts have been put on hold as a result of the cost-cutting exercise. They have been shelved for the time being. Mr Low Thia Khiang referred to the system of renewal of judges. He has two general points. The first point is that there should be continual renewal. In fact, the Chief Justice is taking the leadership in proposing to the Prime Minister outstanding lawyers from the practitioners as well as the Legal Service who have done excellently in private practice, the Legal Service or in the Subordinate Courts. As a result, over recent years, from 1997, six or so Judicial Commissioners have been appointed, and all of them, if you ask members of the legal profession, would be recognised as outstanding legal talents. He mentioned the Chief Justice, that he had heart surgery and so on.”
“Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. Having listened to what you have said about compliance with time, I worry how many of the points that have been raised can be answered during the short period. But if I do not answer all the points, or I do not answer all the points satisfactorily, I hope the Member would feel free to file Questions for Oral Answer or take it up under the Ministry of Law. Let me, first, take the points raised by Mr Chandra Mohan, who raised several points about our system of appointment of Judges, whether we can privatise, whether we can have a panel, and so on. My answer is that he knows that in our system in Singapore, the method of appointment of Judges follows the provisions and system to be found in many Commonwealth countries. But I agree with him that we can have any kind of system as we can think of. In the world there are many systems - the Americans have a particular procedure, the Europeans have other procedures. But, at the end of the day, what is important is the integrity, honesty and incorruptibility of the total system and of the people who operate the system, not only in the Judiciary but of the Government and other agencies in their relationship with the Judiciary. Our system has worked. It has worked satisfactorily and has gained the kudos and credit from international circles and international ranking agencies. The Member knows that the agencies had given high marks of our Judiciary. We have ranked tops in most of the international surveys and Asia Pacific Legal said in their survey: "Singapore courts are both highly expert and untainted by corruption. Singapore courts have a good reputation for both impartiality and efficiency." So, yes, we can devise new systems but I would ask: is it necessary?”
“Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Acting Minister for Education what is the number and percentage of women undergraduates admitted to (i) the polytechnics; and (ii) the universities for each of the last three years (2001, 2002 and 2003).”
“Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Acting Minister for Education what is the number and percentage of (i) Primary 6 students in the GEP, EM1, EM2 and EM3 classes in each of the last three years (2001, 2002 and 2003); and (ii) secondary 4 students in the GEP, Normal (Technical), Normal (Academic) and Express Streams in each of the same three years. Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: In the last three years, the percentage of Primary 6 pupils in EM1, EM2 and EM3 was about 18%, 70% and 12% respectively. (See details below.) Table: Number and Percentage of Primary 6 Pupils by Stream 2001 2002 2003 Stream No. % No. % No. % EM1 8,939 17.8 9,591 18.0 8,888 17.3 EM2 34,705 68.9 37,821 71.1 36,330 70.7 EM3 6,700 13.3 5,752 10.8 6,154 12.0 TOTAL 50,344 100 53,164 100 51,372 100 GEP pupils constituted about 1% of the total shown above. The number and percentage for the last 3 years are shown in the table below. Table: Number and Percentage of GEP Pupils in Primary 6 2001 2002 2003 No. % No. % No. % 488 0.97 481 0.90 453 0.88 At Secondary 4, an average of 9% of the pupils were in Special course, 51% in Express, 25% in Normal (Academic) (N(A)) and 14% in Normal (Technical) (N(T)). (See table below). Table: Number and Percentage of Secondary 4 Pupils by Course 2001 2002 2003 Course No. % No. % No. % Special 4,011 9.6 3,614 9.5 3,955 9.2 Express 21,744 52.3 19,308 51.0 22,140 51.2 N(A) 10,258 24.7 9,624 25.4 10,610 24.6 N(T) 5,565 13.4 5,303 14.0 6,502 15.0 TOTAL 41,578 100 37,849 100 43,207 100 The number of GEP pupils at Secondary 4 and percentages of the total shown above for the last 3 years are in the table below. Table: Number and Percentage of GEP Pupils in Secondary 4 2001 2002 2003 No. % No. % No. % 283 0.68 362 0.96 390 0.90 WOMEN UNDERGRADUATES 2.”
“Since its opening in 1999, 32 tenancies have been terminated at the Ten Mile Junction or TMJ. Over the same period, 6 new tenancies were signed. As of today, there are 6 tenants in TMJ occupying about 40% of the available floor space, including a supermarket and a number of tuition centres. The Member has asked what was the loss incurred by the Government in this development. Since its opening in 1999, TMJ's annual rental revenue less running costs has averaged about $60,000. As the complex was designed as an integrated mixed development with commercial, infrastructural and residential uses and since the major residential component has not been built, it is premature to estimate what the returns from this investment will be. As for TMJ's future plans, SLA intends to let out the entire shopping mall to a single master tenant who will then be responsible for all aspects of operating the mall. SLA called for the tender for a master tenant in April 2003. The intention was to position the mall as a "one-stop learning hub". The only bid received then was from one Hypermart. This bid was rejected because it was unable to comply with the use requirements to set aside 50% of the gross floor space for educational use. As such, the tender was not awarded. No bids were received for the second tender held in December last year. Based on feedback from interested parties from these earlier tenders, SLA is now finalising new, improved and more flexible terms and conditions for a tender to be launched by mid-2004 to meet market needs. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PRIMARY SIX AND SECONDARY FOUR STUDENTS 1.”
“Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) if he will elaborate on the challenges of the "New World" that the Prime Minister referred to in his recent CNN "Talkasia" interview; (b) whether Singapore has embarked on a new economic blue-print or white-paper to meet these challenges; (c) what measures and programmes are being contemplated to inform and educate Singaporeans, especially the workforce, on the opportunities and the threats of the "New World"; (d) what are the new programmes to foster the growth of local world class companies and will this become our preferred national strategy.”
“They have not raised the issue of the bridge formally with us. I think Members would have read many statements in the press and in the media by various quarters. I think it is counter-productive to speculate on these reports as to what they will send us, what they may propose, and so on. In fact, at this stage, I do not even know for sure whether the bridge will be one of the issues that PM Abdullah will raise with PM Goh. We have to wait for the proposals so when they come, when we receive them, we will study them in good faith and give our reply. But Members will recall that at the sitting on 5th January 2004 I dealt with this issue of the bridge and I reminded the House that when Singapore reluctantly agreed to the demolition of the Causeway and to build our part of the bridge, it was as part of a package deal which covered several issues, including continued supply of water for another 100 years from 2061. But Malaysia called off the package in October 2002 and, as I said then, building our part of such a full bridge along with related CIQ revisions would cost us over $500 million and, furthermore, would also sterilise the use of the land under the bridge. From our viewpoint, the bridge would not be cost-effective compared to the Causeway. Now that the package is off, we need to know what is being proposed to Singapore that would justify us agreeing to demolish the Causeway, and build our side of a full bridge at such considerable cost. As I said just now, we will carefully consider the proposals when we receive them. And it follows that in the spirit of win-win cooperation, there can be an agreement only if the proposals are fair and that both sides benefit, and the benefits are balanced. CHALLENGES OF "NEW WORLD" 4.”
“I would rather not speculate. As we have heard, because the issues were so intractable and so difficult to untie and since the package was called off, our position was, let us move forward without being shackled by these issues, and those issues, let us refer to third party. But PM Abdullah said that he would prefer to give the talks another chance. Now, what he has in mind, we will have to wait until his proposals come forward.”
“Sir, I do not wish to speculate on what are the "low-hanging fruits" that Prime Minister Abdullah referred to. I prefer to wait till Prime Minister Abdullah reverts to Prime Minister Goh with specific proposals. And I have said, the deadlocked issues from the Mahathir era are very difficult and, as PM Goh said, are dead knots which are difficult to untie. This is why our preference was to have them settled through third-party settlement. But since PM Abdullah wanted to give the talks another chance, PM Goh agreed. So in good faith, Sir, we will study the proposals when we receive them. Of course, we can only reach agreement if the proposal is fair and if there is a balance of the benefits on both sides. If the discussions should make no progress then, as we agreed, we will refer to a third party. But the important point, Sir, is that both sides want to move on with our bilateral relations. We want to maximise our common areas to strengthen our cooperation. The outstanding deadlocked issues, in my view, are not the sum total of our relationship. And there is much both countries can benefit from good relations. The recent introductory visit and the two social get-togethers have created the right goodwill and atmosphere to give impetus to this effort.”
“If I may sum up, these recent events have generated much goodwill and have created a conducive atmosphere within which we can discuss future bilateral cooperation as well as tackle substantive issues.”