Wong Kan Seng
Singapore
“We all want a better future for our children and the future generations. Amid the debates, let us not lose sight of what we are working for – we are working for the benefit and future of Singaporeans. Not for growth targets, not for foreigners, but for Singaporeans.”
“Mrs Mildred Tan also suggested doing a longitudinal study on the impact of new citizens on Singapore. I am told that there is a periodic study on the perception of integration and rootedness of Singaporeans and PRs. A study is now ongoing too.”
“All they need to do is simply declare that they meet the residential criteria. EASING IN US ECONOMY (Impact on Singapore) 9. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Senior Minister what will be the expected impact on the Singapore economy arising from the US Federal Reserve's announcement on 3rd November 2010 of a "quantitative easing" of the US economy…”
“Well, from the data I have here, 553 registered to vote before the 2006 GE and this is the data I have but Ms Lim may be right. There may be 1,000-odd that Ms Lim had mentioned. From what I am told now, we have 1,325 Singaporean overseas who are eligible to register to vote have registered.”
“But, as I said, there are so many other possibilities that they could come in and there could also be many possibilities that we could have missed and they have entered or left Singapore. LAND SWAP AGREEMENT FOR KTM STATION AND RAILWAY LANDS 2.”
“They are also recruiting people by offering them scholarships. So, we hope more of our companies can do that. Hopefully they come here to work for a while and, if they like our place, they may want to settle down. This is a place which they can think about. POPULATION AND TALENT DIVISION 5. Assoc. Prof.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,192 lines we hold for Wong Kan Seng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 64.
“It is not to go and track a contractor or a canteen operator going into a particular building. That is not of interest to the Police. And if there is indeed a reason to go and find out about the personal conduct of a person, then by all means do so, so long as there is no security implication for this. There is no difficulty to get approval, because all one needs to do is to seek approval from the licensing officer. The licensing officer will give the permission as quickly as possible, if there is a legitimate interest to do so. The licensing officer will therefore have cognisance of it and that if there is going to be any trip up, then the case is already known to the licensing officer and the Police. Otherwise, there could be a lot of problems. I have known of cases, not of a Government leader or whatever, but some other establishments engaging private investigators doing surveillance on others, and that has come to the Police's notice because some members of the public reported it to the Police who have to spend resources to look into the matter. Then we found that there was a reason why that particular surveillance was done. That is the main reason why this is done. It is not to screen off the political leaders from surveillance by people. Singapore Ministers are all open and they go to the constituencies and attend functions. Of course, people do observe. But if one has a specific assignment to go and "case" a Minister, then there must be a reason why he wants to do that. And if the reason is legitimate, there is no reason why the approval will not be given. I will come back to Dr Teo Ho Pin's point about ensuring compliance. Indeed, the licensing officer, the SIRD, will have audit checks on the security guard agencies to ensure that they do the job well.”
“Of course, for more sensitive installations and for higher profile types of establishments, then different skill sets may be required. For these, the Police will also set the standards. Most of the companies will be able to send their employees to undergo the training courses conducted by the respective agencies. Mr Teo also asked that we give personalised licences. I have already mentioned that we will do so. That will actually give the security officers a greater scope for mobility. Right now, whenever they change companies, the new company will apply for approval to hire them. Under the new licensing regime, the individual officer can just move along to another employer who can offer him better terms and better wages. Sir, in terms of wages, from the information given to me by the Union of Security Employees, the wages have actually gone up. The gross salary has gone up between $880-$1,000 in 2003, to about $1,300-$1,800 in 2006. This is partly because of the increasing standards and training required of our security officers. I suppose when we talk of the average salary of the security officers and if we take into account also those who are not under the present NSRS scheme type of officers, then it could be dragged down by other kinds of unlicensed guards currently employed by other establishments, like condominiums and so on. Let me now come to Ms Sylvia Lim's question on clause 11. The main rationale for this is to ensure that certain types of people - our key Government leaders, the foreign missions' officials, Ambassadors, Counsellors and officers who are targets for terrorists - are not easily put under surveillance by those who want to do harm to them. And that is the reason why we have this particular clause.”
“I do not think they need to worry about it. Of course, there may be some who do not pass the security screening. All those in-house guards do not undergo security screening. Security officers employed by the security agencies will undergo security screening. For these guards who do not pass security screening, we will give them time to find other jobs. They will have to look for other things to do since they should not remain as security officers or guards in the buildings. On the manpower forecast for the security officers, I would say that there would be an increase in demand in the light of the new buildings and the IRs that are being set up. There will be adequate training facilities available. Right now, there are 36 training centres training people for NSRS qualification. I believe these 36 centres will be able to cope with the demand of the industry's needs. For those which require higher levels of skills like the WSQ, the Temasek Polytechnic is running courses, and they also run parts of these courses together with 10 other training centres for WSQ qualification. I believe there ought to be adequate places for anyone who wants to be a security officer. For the small and medium firms, I would say that they should have no problem complying with the new licensing requirement. But if they have, they will be given time to adjust. The standards of professionalism and the skills required are set by the Police. The NSRS standard is also set by the Police. The WSQ standard is also set by the Police working with the industry. So there is already a professional framework required of the kind of skills that are needed to perform certain types of security services.”
“Sir, I thank the three Members for supporting the Bill. In fact, they have made some very relevant points which are also of concern to me when we first decided to have a Bill like this to raise the standards of our security officers as well as to ensure that the private investigators conduct their activities properly. Let me assure the House that the existing security officers who have already qualified under the NSRS scheme - there are about 24,900-plus of them - do not need to retake the test. They have already qualified for licensing as they have passed the NSRS. The group that is currently left out and not yet covered and who will be covered under the new Act will be the in-house guards. The in-house guards are the ones that could be employed by hotels, building owners or condominiums. I would also say that some of these buildings and condominiums also employ guards from the private security agencies. For these building managements, they should have no problems retaining the guards. But for other forms of in-house guards, they will have to undergo training. The basic training they need is not a security WSQ. This is of a different standard altogether. In fact, the WSQ training, whether it is certificate, advanced certificate or diploma in WSQ is for career advancement, for supervisory leadership and managerial positions. If the security officers wish to move up their career, then they should consider taking the WSQ. But for the rest, they only need to undergo the NSRS training, which is not difficult. From what I have seen in the last few years since we started the scheme, practically all of them passed. If they do not pass, they will be given opportunities to pass. For the existing in-house guards who are now not licensed, they will also be given time to pass.”
“At the beginning of last year, a buyer awareness exhibition and seminar was also held to allow major buyers in the business community to be more discerning in their engagement of security service providers. Last month, I launched the Security Workforce Skills Qualifications or Security WSQ. In line with the effort to upgrade the quality of the security services, a pilot exercise was also conducted last year to grade all licensed security agencies according to prescribed professional standards. Part of the objectives of the exercise was also to provide an objective and authoritative assessment of existing security agencies and motivate them to raise their service standards and improve their operational processes. Police has recently completed the formal grading exercise for this year, after refining the criteria following last year's pilot exercise, and will be publishing the results on the Internet very soon. Sir, much work has been done over the last few years to develop the private security industry into the effective partner of our security forces. Today's amendment to the law is part of this greater transformation of the industry which MHA is helping to facilitate. In the current security environment, this Act will be a key component in our efforts to enhance the capabilities of the private security industry, so that the Government and private sector partnership can work together to keep Singapore safe and secure. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.24 pm”
“For example, clause 20 allows the licensing officer to levy a charge on a prescribed security service provider, being a Central Alarm Monitoring Station (CAMS) provider, if it indiscriminately alerts the police whenever an alarm is activated at premises that it is monitoring, without first taking reasonable measures to verify whether it is a false alarm. The Schedule of the Bill contains a list of security equipment that will fall under the ambit of the new Act. Increase in fine quantum Sir, the current Act was enacted in 1973, more than 30 years ago. The highest penalty provided for in the Act is a $10,000 fine or a two-year imprisonment term, or both. In the current context, where revenues of industry players are considerably higher, such penalties are no longer adequate, particularly the fines. If the fines are not increased, the Act will pose no deterrence and this will have adverse consequences for our security. Hence, to keep pace with the changes in the business environment and to ensure that there is adequate deterrence in today's context, the Bill will provide for a five-fold increase in the maximum quantum of fines. Past initiatives to upgrade industry Mr Speaker, Sir, let me put into context the current amendments in terms of what we are doing to upgrade the private security industry. At the end of 2004, police set up the Security Industry Regulatory Department (SIRD) to look into the regulation of the private security industry. A set of skills standards under the National Skills Recognition System or NSRS was introduced in 2005 for all private security officers employed by the security agencies.”
“Sir, key Government leaders and sensitive places are known to be targets of terrorists. Having such provisions in our laws will mark out clearly to the industry the boundaries they have to work within. At the same time, such a law serves to alert the licensing authority to any activities of security concern, giving the licensing authority advance information, as well as the opportunity to investigate further if necessary. Record-keeping of identities of private investigator's clients Sir, other measures to strengthen the regulatory framework over the private investigation industry include clause 10, which requires a private investigation agency to obtain and verify the identity and address of the person engaging its services, before it can accept any assignment from such a person. To complement this requirement, clause 12 of the Bill specifies the various records, including the identity of the clients, where a private investigation agency or employer of a private investigator has to keep and submit to the licensing authority. Expansion of regulatory scope to include other activities in the private security industry The Bill will also cover security service providers, other than private investigators and security officers. As defined in clause 18, those providing security surveillance services, and those installing security equipment like audio devices used for overhearing and recording a conversation in any premises, will be regulated under the new Act. This will allow controls to be imposed on other security service providers, to ensure that they meet certain standards of professionalism.”
“If they work in places where the security threat is lower, we will consider exempting them from the licensing requirement under the Act. This will ease the level of displacement from the industry when the Act comes into force. But I foresee that many of them would be able to make the grade. Clause 5(2) of the Bill currently provides that certain persons are not to be regarded as private investigators, such as in-house investigators employed by insurance companies, and those working as investigators in other business sectors, for example, those who obtain or give information on the financial standing of another person, or public accountants, which pose little threat to national security, and are of no concern to the police. The Act also allows the Minister to further exempt other categories of private investigators from licensing under the Act, should their work be of little security concern. Approval for private investigators to take on certain security assignments However, for those private investigators who need to be licensed, police will tighten up the regulatory regime to ensure that they do not conduct private investigation activities which may be prejudicial to the public interest or our national security. Clause 11 of the Bill, therefore, states that a private investigator has to seek the licensing officer's approval before accepting any assignment from a foreign government or its proxy agency. Similarly, a private investigator has to seek the licensing officer's approval before he carries out any surveillance or activities which involve the gathering of information on certain persons or places of security concern. The licensing officer may subsequently revoke this approval if it is not in the public interest or if it poses a threat to national security.”
“We are therefore introducing an enhanced regulatory regime, where all security officers, and private investigators as well, will be licensed personally, so that (a) it will enable the licensing authority to conduct the necessary background checks and prevent undesirable elements from operating as security officers or private investigators; and (b) it will enable the licensing authority to specify the requisite skills and qualifications that private investigators and security officers should have. In time to come, the licensing authority may also require security officers who work at more sensitive installations, where the security threat is higher, to possess higher level qualifications and skills. This licensing regime will apply to those security officers and private investigators in the direct employment of building owners and businesses, and who currently do not need Police's approval to work. There will also be regulations governing the conduct of security officers and security agencies. The net result is that better training and conduct will raise standards and give the security officers a greater sense of pride and professionalism. Should a private investigator or security officer be charged with or convicted of a prescribed offence which makes his continued employment as a private investigator or security officer undesirable, his licence can be suspended with immediate effect. This power is provided in clause 24(5) of the Bill. With the introduction of the licensing schemes for security officers and private investigators, more than 500 private investigators and 30,000 security officers will need to apply for a licence. We are aware that some security officers and private investigators are unable to attain a licence, despite their best efforts.”
“Security officers guard many of our shopping malls, commercial buildings, hotels and key installations. They should be alert in detecting and reporting potential threats. Their timely reports of any suspicious activity can bring about expeditious action by law enforcement agencies. At the same time, they are an additional resource in our response to security incidents. Let me cite an example. About two months back, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) received an anonymous call before noon, informing them that a bomb was going to explode at Raffles Place. Together with the security officers deployed in the vicinity, Police immediately checked the vicinity of Clifford Centre where the call was traced to. A security officer deployed at Clifford Centre assisted the Police in reviewing the CCTV recording and provided information that helped to identify the likely culprit. That same afternoon, there was a second call to the SCDF informing them that bombs had been planted at Orchard Road and Tanjong Pagar. This time, the call was traced to International Plaza. Police responded immediately. Security officers deployed at the location again assisted Police in reviewing the CCTV recording. The likely culprit of the morning episode was again identified in this set of CCTV recording. A quick search was done in the vicinity and the culprit was arrested following his admission to making both the bomb hoax calls. This example shows the value of well-trained and vigilant security officers who can complement our security forces.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Impetus for the Bill Sir, in the post 9/11 security environment, the Government has enhanced our security measures in key installations and upgraded the capabilities of our security forces to deal with the new threat of terrorism. However, the police cannot be everywhere. Therefore, it is imperative that we also upgrade the professional standards in the private security industry, so that it can complement the work of our security forces in contributing to Singapore's overall safety and security. The critical role of security personnel can be seen in the many incidents that have occurred in the region and elsewhere in the world. In both the Marriott and Australian Embassy bombings in Jakarta, security personnel had approached the vehicles loaded with explosives before the vehicles were driven up to the buildings proper. As a result, the suicide bombers detonated their bombs earlier than planned - before they could position their vehicles near the buildings, where the explosion could have caused many more casualties. As the security threat evolves, we will need to ensure that we have a competent and professional private security industry to help safeguard our safety and security. This is the impetus for the key changes in the Bill that is being read a Second time today. Introduction of licensing regimes for private investigators and security officers Sir, let me now take the House through the key features of the Bill. First and foremost, we have to strengthen our regulatory framework for private investigators and security officers - or what are commonly known as "security guards" -by putting in place separate licensing regimes for them.”
“In 2005, four persons were convicted under section 377A of the Penal Code. Two persons were convicted for cases involving victims below the age of 18. In 2006, seven persons were convicted under section 377A of the Penal Code. Four persons were convicted for cases involving victims below the age of 18. PARKING AREAS FOR HEAVY VEHICLES 4. Dr Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for National Development (a) if there are sufficient parking areas for heavy vehicles where the owners live in HDB estates and the vehicles can only be parked at designated areas in HDB car parks; and (b) if areas for parking of heavy vehicles can be more strategically located as many are overcrowded due to high demand and often located quite a distance from residential areas where the owners live.”
“In 2006, about 13,000 persons were granted Singapore Citizenship (SC). These new SCs came predominantly from Asian and South-East Asian countries (please see table below). Out of these new citizens, about 73% were PRs when they were granted citizenship. The rest of the new citizens were minors who do not need to obtain PR status first in order to be eligible for citizenship under the Constitution. Table: SC granted by region in 2006 Nationality Granted SC PR when granted SC Percentage of new citizens who were then PRs South East Asian Countries 5,372 3,812 71.0% Other Asian Countries 6,622 5,567 84.1% Others 1,215 255 21.0% Total 13,209 9,634 72.9% FOREIGN UNIVERSITIES IN SINGAPORE (Campuses and student population) 3. Dr Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many foreign universities have set up campuses in Singapore thus far; (b) what is their combined estimated student population; and (c) in light of the recent decision on the closure of UNSW, what is the performance of the other universities.”
“In 2006, about 57,000 persons were granted permanent residency status in Singapore. These new permanent residents (PRs) came predominantly from Asian and South-East Asian countries. We also get immigrants from diverse places such as the Americas, Oceania and Europe (please see table below). Nationality Granted PR in 2006 Percentage South East Asian Countries 27,543 48.1% Other Asian Countries 26,125 45.6% Others 3,642 6.3% Total 57,310 100.0% SINGAPORE CITIZENSHIP (Figures) 2. Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs in 2006 (a) how many of the foreign nationals who became Singapore citizens were then Malaysian, Indonesian, People's Republic of China or Indian nationals; and (b) of these persons, how many were then Singapore permanent residents.”
“In October 2006, SCDF and the National Fire Prevention Council or NFPC organised a Fire Safety Drive specifically targeted at preventing fires due to improper use of LPG cylinders. Major LPG suppliers supported the drive by handing out advisories on the safe handling and use of LPG cylinders to customers. An LPG-related fire safety quiz was also launched on the NFPC website to enhance awareness. The safe use of LPG cylinders is also a regular feature during the Emergency Preparedness Days and other community outreach events in the heartlands. ACCIDENTS INVOLVING LIGHT COMMERCIAL VEHICLES (Statistics) 54. Assoc. Prof. Kalyani K Mehta asked the Minister for Transport in light of the speed limit increase for light commercial vehicles from March 2005 (a) whether he will provide statistics on accidents involving such vehicles from (i) March 2003 to February 2005 and (ii) March 2005 to February 2007; and (b) if there is a marked increase in accidents following the speed limit change, whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the current speed limit and reduce it for better safety on the roads.”
“LPG-related fires over the last three years have been relatively low, making up less than 1% of total fires. In 2004, there were 48 LPG-related fires, 39 in households and nine in commercial premises. In 2005, there were 26 fires in 23 households and three commercial premises. In 2006, there were 32 fires in 26 households and six commercial premises. For this year, up to end May, the numbers have dropped to seven fires, six in households and one in commercial premises. Even though the number of cases is small, SCDF has taken measures to minimise the occurrence of LPG-related fires. SCDF stipulates stringent safety requirements for LPG installation and usage. All operating food outlets are required to register their storage and use of LPG with SCDF annually if the quantity exceeds 200 kg. To set up a new LPG system for a food outlet, the owner has to engage a Qualified Person (QP) to submit plans complying with the technical guidelines in the Fire Code for approval. To allow for tiered checks, separate QPs are required to conduct a pressure test and inspect the LPG system. Only after both criteria have been satisfied can the owner apply for a storage licence from SCDF to use the LPG system. In addition, SCDF conducts regular enforcement checks to ensure the LPG systems are in good working condition. As for households, LPG dealers are required by law to conduct safety checks for their household clients from time to time. These dealers are trained by their suppliers to inspect LPG cylinders, hoses and fittings. SCDF also engages LPG suppliers and users directly in fire prevention, safety and education.”
“For the last five years, 24 statutory boards were not rotated for audit by AG but which were nevertheless audited as per normal practice by commercial auditors. CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES (Breakdown) 48. Assoc. Prof. Kalyani K Mehta asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports if he can provide the number of cases of child abuse and neglect for the past five years, with a breakdown according to age, gender, type of abuse and sources of referral.”
“Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) if he will explain why the Economic Development Board was only audited by the Auditor-General for the first time after 46 years; (b) what is the frequency of audits by the Auditor-General on Government agencies; and (c) whether there are any Government agencies which have not been audited by the Auditor-General in the last five years. Mr Lee Hsien Loong: All Government agencies are audited annually. The Auditor-General (AG) currently audits the accounts of all Government Ministries and departments on an annual basis. In addition, the AG performs annual audits on certain statutory boards, for example, MAS, CPFB, and HDB. These are typically large statutory boards with substantial assets. The other statutory boards are audited annually by commercial auditors appointed by the respective Ministers, except for the years when they are rotated for audit by the AG. In the case of EDB, until 1989, the EDB Act did not provide for AG to audit its accounts. Nonetheless, EDB's accounts were audited annually by leading and reputable commercial auditors. As they had done a satisfactory job, they continued to audit EDB even after the EDB Act was amended in 1989 to allow the AG to audit its accounts. In 2004, the Public Accounts Committee recommended that statutory boards that have been audited over a considerable period of time by commercial auditors be rotated back for audit by the AG. As a result of the recommendation, AG audited EDB’s accounts for FY2005/06. Going forward, AG intends to audit EDB as well as the other larger statutory boards at least once every five years.”
“Over the last five years, on average, about 8,700 Singaporeans applied for permanent residence (PR) status for their foreign spouses each year. The average approval rate has been 60%. Our policies on long-term immigration facilities take into account the preservation of family unity. However, marriage to a Singaporean does not automatically guarantee that the foreign spouse would be granted PR status. Citizens and Permanent Residents sponsoring their foreign spouses or children for PR status will have to show that they are able to support them financially. Also, to prevent foreigners from using marriage to Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents as a means to obtain PR status quickly, PR status will not be granted immediately upon marriage. When the foreign spouse is not eligible for PR status, we would still consider granting him or her a Long Term Social Visit Pass (LTSVP) so that he or she can remain in Singapore. Over the last five years, the average approval rate of LTSVP applications by foreign spouses has been about 85%. Generally, ICA will try to provide applicants with the reasons for rejection, to help them understand what they can do to improve their eligibility when they re-apply. In short, ICA's guidelines governing the grant of long-term immigration facilities to foreign spouses are sufficiently compassionate to allow deserving spouses to stay in Singapore. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD (EDB) (Audit by the Auditor-General) 43.”
“Sir, let me end by summarising that the policy intention is to provide legal effect to the liberalisation of the postal sector. We believe this Bill will encourage fair market competition and ensure better services and more competitive prices for consumers. Crucially, it will also foster greater service innovation and lay the foundation for a strong and vibrant postal sector in a competitive and liberalised environment. Sir, I beg to move. 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. - [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Eight Minutes to Seven o'clock pm. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 3.00 PM UNDISCHARGED BANKRUPTS LEAVING SINGAPORE WITHOUT PERMISSION (Prosecutions) 23. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law how many bankrupts were prosecuted for leaving Singapore without obtaining the Official Assignee's permission in the last three years and what measures are in place to prevent such cases.”
“Till such a new PPL emerges, for the time being, SingPost will continue to be the designated PPL that would have access to all local letter boxes for mail delivery under its universal service obligations. However, this does not mean that there will not be competition in letter delivery. Because this two-way master-door letter boxes that I told you about only represent about 32% or one third of all local letter boxes. That means all the other basic mail service providers will still be able to deliver directly to the open-aperture letter boxes and to the three-way master-door letter boxes which together account for 67% of all the letter boxes in Singapore. Basic mail providers are welcome to directly approach the town councils or, in the case of condominiums, the Management Committees to obtain the master-door keys that will grant them access to the three-way master-door letter boxes. In this respect, I would like to encourage all the town councils and the Management Committees to work with interested postal operators because, by doing so, it will provide more competition and more choices and, hopefully, more competitive pricing for the residents. But at the same time, IDA would also facilitate the system so that other basic mail providers will, if they do not have access to the letter box, still have access to SingPost delivery network and that delivery network will, as I said earlier, be able to reach all letter boxes but at regulated prices, terms and conditions, which IDA will decide. So using these two methods, we will still ensure that competition prevails and people will have choice. More details about this very difficult issue of access to letter boxes will be published by IDA in their Regulations, the Competition Code and Operations Code for the postal sector.”
“But, yet, in order to enable SingPost to deliver the letters, we came up with what we call a two-door system, an aperture in front which the user can lock and a door at the back which SingPost has the keys to, and they can use that to open up the back of the letter box and insert the letters and the parcels. That is the two-way system. Then there was another innovation, a three-way system. Because the problem with the two-way system is that when the postman opens the back of the box, not only could he put letters in, he could also theoretically remove materials out of that letter box. So the next innovation was a three-way system where, if a person has that key, he could open the back, he could put in letters but he could not remove materials. That was meant to enhance security. The problem then arises with the two-door system because the postman can put letters in as well as remove materials out. And if you have free competition and multiple operators with that second key, where they could both insert and remove materials, then quite legitimate questions would be raised as to the security and integrity of your postal system. Because you will never be sure whether the letter was delivered or removed and, if it was removed, who removed it? So after a significant amount of discussions and consideration, we have now decided that IDA will only facilitate that the designated Public Postal Licensee will have the full set of keys for both the two-way and three-way master letter boxes in Singapore. And to qualify for this access, the PPL would have to comply with arrangements that satisfy IDA that security and integrity have been addressed.”
“Sir, we note that the changes that we have proposed in the Bill will require adjustments in other pieces of legislation as well. These include, first, the Bankruptcy Act; second, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA); and third, the Undesirable Publications Act (UPA). In essence, the consequential amendments to these Acts will widen the coverage of these Acts to include any of the new postal service operators that enter the scene. Lastly, we appreciate the need for industry players and consumers alike to have sufficient time to adjust to the changes in the legal and regulatory frameworks for the postal sector. Clause 41 of the Bill provides the transitional provisions that would allow a six-month period for operators to adjust to the new regime. Access to letter box keys Sir, before I conclude, I would like to address one issue which has attracted comments and queries in the press and during the public consultation phase, although it is strictly not part of the Bill. This issue is related to the matter of access to letter box keys. Some press reports have even implied that the letter box key might actually undermine our attempts to liberalise the sector. Let me explain the situation. We are a unique country with a unique set of letter boxes. The traditional letter box which you will see all over the world is an open-aperture letter box, which means a postman or anybody else for that matter can come to the letter box and insert a letter. That is what we call the open-aperture letter box. But, in Singapore, because we - when I say "we", I mean the people in general - did not like junk mail. We came out with the idea of optionally locking the aperture in the letter box, which means the ordinary postman or the deliveryman cannot slip letters into your letter box.”
“National postage stamps One such area is national postage stamps. Because of their significance, clause 15 of the Bill will allow only IDA and the designated PPL to issue national postage stamps that bear the word "Singapore". The designated PPL will have to meet certain obligations, for instance, obtaining IDA's approval for the designs of the national postage stamps. The designated PPL must also comply with any related instructions from IDA. SingPost, as a designated PPL, will continue to issue national postage stamps. These stamps and their associated rights, together with other philatelic archival materials, will continue to be the property of the Government. Remittance of money Another provision that has been fine-tuned is the remittance of money under section 11 of the existing Act. The Bill repeals and re-enacts a new clause 11 that scopes the remittance activities to cover only those remittance systems that have been established by or among public postal licensees and any relevant foreign postal administrations. This will make clear that the new Act does not cover remittance activities carried out by financial institutions. Appeals mechanism One further enhancement to the Act is the inclusion of provisions to provide better clarity about the appeals mechanism. Clause 38 provides the details about the appeals mechanism that postal licensees who do not agree with IDA's decision can refer to, if they decide to appeal to the Minister. Other provisions There have also been other changes to the Act that I will not dwell on. The House will find that these are mainly changes to ensure that the Act will remain relevant in this new competitive environment.”
“Offences and penalties To ensure the integrity and smooth functioning of the postal services and prevent any deliberate abuses, this Bill will also seek to reinforce the penalty regime for offences. Under the old regime, the gains from anti-competitive behaviour to disadvantage other competitors may well exceed the current stipulated penalties. Consequently, we believe that, by enhancing the penalties regime, we will ensure that our objective of maintaining a deterrent effect is retained. To do so, we have strengthened the financial penalties for licensees who contravene licence conditions, and for licensees who do not comply with orders issued by IDA. The scope of conditions for the suspension or cancellation of licence in section 9 of the Act has also been broadened to include an assessment of whether the licensee is in a position to comply with the Act or the licence conditions as well as its propensity to default again. For example, the financial penalty for contravention of licence conditions has been increased from the current $10,000 to an amount not exceeding $1 million. This might seem, at first glance, to be a large jump, but we believe that the magnitude of the increase in penalties is appropriate. It is also in line with what has been adopted under other pieces of legislation, for instance, the Telecommunications Act and the Electricity Act. This will serve as a safeguard against anti-competitive actions by any single operator if that operator was to attempt to hurt other operators and, ultimately, hurt consumers by reducing competition. Updating of existing provisions Sir, the third major area of change to the Act consists of updates to existing provisions to ensure they remain relevant. Let me cite a few examples.”
“Sir, we need to maintain public confidence in the integrity of our national postal system. Consequently, IDA must be equipped with the appropriate enforcement powers to respond and fully investigate any alleged lapses or abuses. Today, section 46 of the Act empowers IDA to require any person to furnish any information or document in his possession relating to any postal service or system. Clause 31 of the Bill will enhance this provision by requiring the person who furnished the information or document, to also provide an explanation of the document in order to facilitate IDA's investigations. If the person claims that the document cannot be produced, then he would have to state, to the best of his knowledge, the location of such document. A provision has also been inserted to stipulate that such a document can either be in physical or electronic form. Sir, to balance this enhanced leverage, a clause has been included to offer the person a defence if he can prove that the document was not in his possession or not under his control, or that it was not reasonably practicable for him to comply with the requirements. The other key changes in enforcement powers aim to provide greater clarity on the status of letters that have been seized during enforcement procedures. Currently, the Act is silent on what would happen to such letters and there is an uncertainty over who would be held accountable. To remove this uncertainty, for operators and consumers alike, clause 34 of the Bill will provide for the IDA to deliver to its intended addressee, or return the letter to the original sender.”
“A PSO, on the other hand, will have the flexibility to select one or more segments of the postal services market in which to operate, without the need to meet such USOs. Such market segments in the postal sector could include the conveyance of letters or mailroom operations. Details of the Bill Sir, I have explained the policy objectives behind this Bill. Let me quickly explain some of the key changes. Revised definition and new provisions First, we have redefined the scope of a "letter" to now include all written communications, including postcards but excluding books, catalogues, newspapers or periodicals. We have specified that letters weighing more than 500 grams or the conveyance of letters by direct mail would be exempted from the licensing regime. Functions, duties and powers of the Postal Authority The second major change pertains to the powers of the Postal Authority. Clause 3 of the Bill adds new provisions that elaborate on the functions, duties and powers of the Postal Authority, which in our case is the IDA. The proposed changes will allow IDA to design and fine-tune legal instruments to implement its policies for the sector. Clause 18 of the Bill will empower IDA to issue directions, codes of practice and standards of performance to ensure effective competition, fair market conduct and enforcement. In the same vein, clause 21 of the Bill sets out the IDA's new powers to control mergers and acquisitions involving designated postal licensees. It will empower the IDA to review acquisitions and consolidations, so as to address ownership changes that may raise regulatory or competition concerns or which have an impact on national interest. Enforcement powers and procedures Let me move on to enforcement powers and procedures.”
“Key considerations Sir, we must ensure that the quality and integrity of the postal services are maintained at a high level even as we promote a competitive environment. It is in this spirit that the proposed changes in this Bill have been drafted. As the changes will have a wide-ranging impact, my Ministry and the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) have conducted a series of public consultations which began in October last year. I would like to thank all the organisations and individuals who have provided much useful feedback, which we have carefully considered in the formulation of this Bill. The new postal landscape The existing postal sector really consists of two markets. These are the Basic Mail Services market and the Express Letter Services market. Our proposed changes will focus on the Basic Mail Services market while, as I have explained earlier, the Express Letter Services market will remain unchanged because it is already open to competition. Under the old regime, SingPost was the only Public Postal Licensee (PPL) in the Basic Mail Services market and, therefore, had a monopoly. We will now introduce a new type of licensee, in addition to the PPL, called the Postal Service Operator (PSO). Collectively, PPLs and PSOs can be referred to as basic mail service providers. The key difference between the PPL, on the one hand, and the PSO, on the other hand, is that the PPL will have to meet a set of Universal Service Obligations (USOs) in return for certain privileges. These USOs will include the requirement to maintain an island-wide letter collection and delivery system. Under the terms of its current licence, SingPost will continue to be the PPL in this market.”
“Liberalisation of the postal sector Let me begin with a brief overview of the postal sector and the process by which we have managed this liberalisation. Evolution of competition As a whole, the postal sector remains an important one. In 2005, revenues in the sector were about S$1.2 billion, with some 564 commercial establishments. This market is also a mature one. While total mail volume has been growing since the 1990s, the average growth rate in recent years has only been about 2% per year. The Government has been introducing competition gradually to this sector. This, first, began in 1992 when SingPost was granted a Public Postal Licence with a 15-year exclusive right to collect and deliver ordinary letters and postcards within, into and out of Singapore. Three years later, in 1995, the provision of express letter services was liberalised and opened to competition. Today, we have more than 100 express letter licensees. In addition, there has been a completely liberalised market for the delivery of parcels, marketing brochures, advertisements and publicity material. Benefits of liberalisation The stimulus of competition will, we believe, spur even greater and better services for the whole postal sector. The opening of the market to many new players will promote innovation, a greater diversity of services and more competitive prices. This will benefit all users, especially the business users, who today account for more than 90% of the domestic mail that is sent. It is estimated that the liberalisation of the postal services would result in cost savings of between $8 million and $25 million per year, for the sector as a whole, over the next two to three years.”
“Dr Teo's third point is regarding the offence of bringing, taking or sending of false Singapore travel documents across international borders, and he asked how such an offence can be enforced. In fact, I recognise the difficulty of tracking people who do this overseas. But if the person happens to be in Singapore and he is detected to have a false Singapore passport, then we will take action, and that is the purpose of the provision. But even if a person were to misuse a genuine Singapore passport, not just a false passport, action can also be taken by the ICA. Therefore, we see the need to put in place a system to check abuse in order to safeguard the integrity of our passports. I think this is for the general good. It is better because it will mean that the interest of the majority will be protected and they can get into or leave the country more easily than others whose passports may be suspect. 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. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. POSTAL SERVICES (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 15 pm The Second Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Introduction The postal sector was fully liberalised on 1st April this year with the end of SingPost's monopoly in the basic mail services market. Pursuant to this, this Bill seeks to make the necessary amendments to the existing Postal Services Act.”
“In fact, since we implemented this policy, despite the number of passports issued and in circulation has gone up, the number of persons who lost their passports more than twice has not gone up. The number is still very small. We have now put this into the Bill to make the process more transparent. Up till now, it is only done by administrative means. Dr Teo also mentioned that the right to travel for Singaporeans must be respected and safeguarded. But let me reiterate here that the passport issued is a privilege. It is not a matter of right, and Singapore is not the only country that has made it a privilege to give a citizen a passport. Other countries do the same. In fact, when crafting this legislation, we have taken the view that we probably do not need to reinvent the wheel. We can follow what others do, take on the very good features that others have adopted, and adapt them for our purposes and which suit our social context. This is what we have done. So many provisions in the Passports Bill have been adopted from other countries. Dr Teo mentioned about charging a penalty fee. We already have that. In fact, if a person loses his passport, the replacement fee for the first time is $50; the second time is $100; the third time is $100. And if we really have to do it, we will deny a person a passport, and he will not be able to travel. So it is very clear that we need to take very strong measures against people who abuse their passports. On the idea of tagging those who have lost their passports twice so that Immigration Officers can be alerted, I do not see much purpose in this. Because once a person is issued with a passport, he should be free to leave and return. The tagging does not serve a purpose, because we are not going to stop him from travelling.”
“And when that passport falls into the wrong hands, I think the Member knows that the consequences will be quite severe, particularly if it falls into the hands of a criminal or a terrorist. And we never know when that criminal or terrorist may sneak into Singapore using that genuine Singapore passport as his identity. The practice of refusing passports to certain categories of people - including those who lost their passports twice or more - is not new. In fact, we started this practice some years ago, but we did it administratively. And those who were denied their passports know why they were denied their passports. As Mr Alvin Yeo said, they ought to know the reasons. We will tell them the reasons and they have a right of appeal. When the appeal comes to me, I will consider all the factors and give them a fair hearing, and I will then make a decision. But that is not to say that those who lost their passports twice or more will automatically have their passports denied forever. In fact, if there are good reasons why the passport was lost and it is a credible story, then ICA will be quite generous and will give them the passports. But even in the case of those Singaporeans who are denied their passports, because they have lost their passports twice or more, ICA also takes a compassionate view that if they have a good reason to travel, ICA will give them a temporary travel document that would facilitate entry into a country for one time and come back, or for a short period. As a result of this policy of denying Singaporeans who lost their passports twice or more, Singaporeans have become much more careful in making sure that they safeguard their passports and keep them well, so that they will not be lost or stolen.”
“Let me give an example. Malaysia, Thailand and Japan issue passports with five years' validity. The UK, US and Australian passports are valid for 10 years. But there is a difference. Their fees are much higher - two or three times that of Singapore. We charge $80 for a biometric passport. And if a person applies for a biometric passport via electronic means through the ICA website, then he gets a rebate of $10, which means he pays $70. Whereas for the other countries, which I have mentioned with 10-year validity passports, they charge two to three times that amount. But that is not the only point. Their passports are with only 24 or 32 pages - half the number of pages of our passports. We can have a 10-year validity, but a traveller can be assured that if he is a frequent traveller, his passport will be renewed more frequently, and he will probably end up paying more. Dr Teo also shared his concern about refusal of passports to Singaporeans who have lost or their passports stolen two or more times. Sir, we have always emphasised the need for Singaporeans to take good care of their passports. That is because the passport is a valuable travel document, well recognised by many countries and, as a result of our reputation, we cannot run the risk of suffering a loss in our reputation if significant numbers of Singapore passports are abused, either by Singaporeans or by foreigners. Therefore, we take a very severe view of those who abuse their Singapore passports. It may be just a false Singapore passport, but we will still take that view that if a Singaporean is in cahoots with other groups or individuals to misuse a genuine or false Singapore passport.”
“Sir, I thank the Members - Dr Teo Ho Pin and Mr Alvin Yeo - for their support and comments. Allow me to explain further how the Bill will tighten the security of our passport regime. Dr Teo has proposed that we continue to issue passports with a 10-year validity period. I would like to reiterate that the current lifespan of five years for our biometric passport is to allow the ICA to quickly incorporate new technologies and features into our passports. A passport which is valid for 10 years will slow down our process of replacing passports with new technologies. It will mean that the pool of passports already issued will not become due for renewal or replacement until the person comes forward for a replacement or renewal for a long time. In fact, the ICAO itself recommended that the validity period of passports should be a maximum of five years, and that is the standard which we have followed. As a result of this, we can then make changes to the passports when they are due for renewal. In fact, a shorter period of validity also enables the pool of passports to be refreshed more quickly. Different countries have different standards in setting the validity period. Some countries have 10 years and some have five years, and we have chosen five years, like several of those countries which have chosen five years. But, despite that, clause 8(4) allows the Minister to extend the validity of the Singapore passport by Gazette, and we will consider doing this when our passport technology system becomes more stable. We do not know when but, in time to come, who knows. We know that technology will always bring forth surprises that will require us to continue to make changes to the passport. As I said, Sir, each country sets its own standard in issuing passports.”
“For example, when a person who has a passport with remaining validity of six months applies for a new passport, ICA will transfer the remaining six months' validity to his new passport. His new passport would thus be valid for five years and six months. This is no different from the previous Passports Regulations which provided for a validity of 11 years although the passports issued then were valid for 10 years. Conclusion As part of Singapore's contribution towards the fight against international terrorism and transnational crimes, we must proactively enhance our security measures to stay ahead of terrorists and criminals. This Bill aims to restrict the space for terrorists' and criminals' movement by tightening passport controls and to deter the abuse of our passports and travel documents. We will not hesitate to take action against those who abuse their Singapore passports and travel documents. For the vast majority of Singaporeans who travel for legitimate purposes, they will benefit from a highly secure Singapore passport that continues to enjoy stronger reputation and confidence among immigration authorities around the world. This Bill will help us to maintain that reputation and confidence, so that Singaporeans can continue to enjoy hassle-free access wherever and whenever they travel overseas. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 5.51 pm”
“As such, the Passports Bill makes consequential amendments to the Immigration Act in order to put in place similar safeguards for the access and disclosure of such personal information. Separately, Regulation 22 of the Passports Regulations requires a person to present his passport upon entry into and exit from Singapore only if required to do so by an immigration officer. In line with our move to tighten border security due to security situation, and as the presentation of passports upon entry and exit is essentially an immigration issue, we will transfer this provision to the Immigration Act, and amend the provision to make it compulsory for all persons who enter and exit Singapore via our checkpoints to present his passport or travel document to an immigration officer. Validity of Singapore passports Sir, following the First Reading of the Bill, members of the public have asked whether we would reduce the validity period of the Singapore passport with the passing of the Bill. Sir, I would like to clarify that the Bill does not shorten the validity period of the Singapore passports, including those that have already been issued. Since 1st April 2005, all new Singapore passports are issued with a validity period of five years. This allows ICA to incorporate new technologies and features into our passport to ensure that it remains secure and less susceptible to forgery and tampering. While clause 8 of the Bill states that a Singapore passport issued after 1st April 2005 would have a validity period not exceeding six years, the additional year of validity allows ICA the operational flexibility to transfer unused validity from an old passport to a new one, when Singaporeans renew their passports.”
“For example, when a Singapore citizen faces difficulties in establishing his identity overseas, such information could be shared with our embassy officers to assist the authentication process so that necessary assistance may be rendered to him. Unauthorised access or disclosure of such information attracts a maximum penalty of fine not exceeding $5,000, imprisonment of not more than three years, or both. Temporary Travel Document (TTD) Sir, with the growing affluence amongst Singaporeans and a globalising economy, we are seeing strong growth in overseas travel. In 1998, Singaporeans make some 12 million trips overseas. This has since increased to more than 18 million trips in 2006. From time to time, Singaporeans may face difficulties when they need to travel urgently but their passports are with a foreign embassy for visa application. For this group of people, ICA currently issues them with what is known as the Document of Identify, or DOI. However, the DOI, as a travel document, lacks sufficient security features. Furthermore, not all countries recognise the DOI. There is therefore the need to introduce a new travel document, known as the Singapore Temporary Travel Document, or TTD. The TTD carries the same security features as our BioPass, but has fewer pages and a shorter validity. The TTD will be better equipped to serve Singaporeans' travel needs, compared to the DOI. Clauses 11 to 15 of the Bill therefore provide for the issuance of the TTD. Consequential amendments to the Immigration Act Sir, the Immigration Act regulates the entry, stay and exit of foreigners into and out of Singapore, and allows us to take biometric information from foreigners under certain circumstances.”
“There are also practical problems involved in information gathering and investigation for an offence committed outside Singapore. Nonetheless, having the extra-territorial clause in this Bill emphasises the Government's stance against passport abuse offences and sends a strong deterrent message. Framework to adopt new methods and technologies for the Singapore travel documents Sir, the BioPass Project is an example of how, by incorporating new and advanced technology, such as the use of biometric identifiers, we can stay ahead of the potential abusers who are increasingly using modern technology for criminal purposes. Indeed, since 2003, Singapore has been actively taking part in discussions in this arena held by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Council. This has helped us to successfully launch the BioPass in August 2006. As of May this year, the ICA has issued more than 300,000 BioPasses. Features of our BioPasses are now being considered as a model for many other countries planning to introduce biometric passports. It is important for us to stay abreast of technological advancements and continue to deploy new technologies aggressively to enhance the security features of our passports. Clause 54 of the Bill therefore gives us the necessary flexibility to adopt new technologies for our travel documents. Safeguarding of personal identifying information Sir, incorporating more personal information into our travel documents, such as biometric identifiers, also means that we need to safeguard such confidential information. Clause 55 therefore restricts the sharing of such information to the purposes of identification, law enforcement and national security.”
“We will, therefore, introduce a third group of offences to deal with the giving of false statements or information to obtain a Singapore passport or for any other purposes related to the Singapore passport. Clause 39 criminalises the act of providing false statement or information with a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both. Unauthorised issuance of Singapore passport Fourthly, Sir, we will introduce offences on the unauthorised issuance of Singapore passports and travel documents. Clause 48 of the Bill penalises Government officials who issue or make endorsements on Singapore passports contrary to the requirements set out in the Bill. This ensures that the integrity of our passport issuance system is duly upheld. Government officers who are found to have issued or endorsed passports in contravention of the requirements would be liable for a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both. Extra-territorial application for passport abuse offences Sir, we recognise that passport abuse need not be restricted to Singapore, but may be committed by people of all nationalities in any part of the world. Indeed, as the Singapore passport is a travel document, its value is in facilitating entry into other countries. Therefore, the abuse of a passport is likely to occur overseas, as in Singapore. Thus, the Bill extends the application for offences relating to the Singapore passport under this Act beyond our shores to all persons, irrespective of their nationality or citizenship. We are aware of the operational difficulties involved in enforcing our laws overseas. The foreigner concerned would need to be physically present in Singapore in order for us to prosecute him.”
“Clause 36 of the Bill makes it an offence for anyone to make or use a false Singapore passport. It will also be an offence for a person to make or have in his possession any equipment or material that is specially designed for the making of a false Singapore passport with the intent that it would be used for such purposes. Such acts would be punished with a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both. In addition, clause 37 criminalises the possession of a false Singapore passport. Such an act will carry the same penalties. Offences related to foreign travel documents Sir, besides the Singapore passport and travel documents, foreign travel documents are also susceptible to tampering, forgery and misuse. We view any form of passport abuse seriously. Clause 47 of the Bill, therefore, seeks to punish such acts, if they are carried out in Singapore, with penalties equivalent to that imposed on the tampering, forgery and misuse of Singapore passports and travel documents. Offences related to the giving of false statements or information Sir, in 2005, ICA detected a case where some parents had applied for Singapore passports for other children using their own children's original birth certificates in exchange for money to be gained. Their Singapore passports would bear the names of their own children but affixed with photographs of other children. Had ICA failed to detect such an act, the imposter would have used a genuine Singapore passport to travel overseas. While ICA's passport issuance process has the necessary checks and balances to detect and prevent fraudulent passport applications, we need to send a strong deterrent signal.”
“Classifying the sale of passports as "miscellaneous offences" is not commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, especially if the passports were to fall into the wrong hands, in particular, the terrorists. With this Bill, any person who is guilty of selling or attempting to sell the Singapore passport can be fined up to $10,000, imprisoned up to 10 years, or both. Further, should such an act be found to be syndicated, ie, if a person is found to have engaged in the business of selling Singapore passports, the penalty will be stiffer - a mandatory jail term of not less than two years and not more than 15 years, and a fine of up to $20,000. Besides the offence of selling Singapore passports and travel documents, we will also criminalise the improper possession of passports or travel documents, with a maximum penalty of imprisonment of not more than 10 years, a fine of up to $10,000, or both. A person who is found guilty of giving away his Singapore passport or travel document and is reckless as to whether it would be misused by another person for travel or for identification purposes will face a fine of up to $5,000, a jail term of up to three years, or both. Singaporeans should not hand over their passports to other persons or hold on to other persons' passports for no legitimate reasons. While we can allow travel agents to temporarily hold on to our passport to facilitate our travel documents, eg, for visa applications, we should not hand over our passports to persons who demand them as a form of security or surety for any form of goods or services rendered. Offences related to false Singapore passports Sir, the second group of offences covers the falsifying of Singapore passports.”
“Furthermore, in today's heightened security environment, we must do our part as a responsible member of the international community to minimise the abuse of our passports so as not to provide terrorist elements with the opportunity to slip in and out of the country easily using forged or stolen passports. It is therefore necessary for the Government to take a tougher stance by criminalising such acts. Thus, the Bill introduces four main clauses of passport offences. These offences will carry heavy penalties to send a clear message to potential perpetrators. Offences related to the improper use or possession of passports First, we will introduce offences relating to improper use or possession of a Singapore passport. Sir, we have cases where persons were found to have attempted to pass through our checkpoints using another person's Singapore passport. We cannot condone such activities, nor should we allow a small number of Singaporeans to misuse their passports for selfish gains. In 2006, ICA arrested a citizen who was engaged in selling lost or stolen Singapore as well as foreign passports to a syndicate. He was found to have multiple Singapore and foreign passports in his possession when he was arrested. As the law currently does not provide for the offence of selling passports, he was instead charged and only sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment for the fraudulent possession of property under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. The charge of fraudulent possession of property carries with it a maximum fine not exceeding $5,000 and an imprisonment term not exceeding two years, or both. Clearly, Sir, such penalties are grossly inadequate.”
“The Bill continues to allow the Controller to deny passports to these persons so as to prevent them from re-establishing and perpetuating their unlicensed moneylending business while they are overseas. All Singapore passports and travel documents that have been cancelled should be surrendered to ICA quickly. This is to avoid such passports being subsequently abused. Hence, clause 30 of the Bill allows the ICA to demand that a person surrenders a cancelled Singapore passport. Similarly, a person who ceases to be a Singapore citizen will also be required to surrender his Singapore passport. Measures against the misuse of Singapore and foreign travel documents Sir, the Bill seeks to enhance measures against the misuse and abuse of Singapore passports and foreign travel documents. Currently, for Singapore passports, we rely on administrative measures, such as the denial of passport facilities, to curb abuse. We can also prosecute a person under the relevant sections of the Penal Code if a Singapore passport or a foreign travel document is misused within our jurisdiction. Our efforts against passport abuse have kept the number of abuse cases low. In 2006, there were only 74 passport abuse cases, compared to 116 in 2003. Abuse of the Singapore passport, if left unchecked, can cause inconvenience to Singaporeans who travel overseas. Foreign immigration authorities may start to doubt the authenticity of Singapore passports presented to them, causing them to scrutinise our passports and their Singaporean holders more closely and, perhaps, even imposing additional restrictions. Our international reputation could be adversely affected.”
“To help curb such behaviour, the Bill allows the Controller to refuse to issue a Singapore passport to a person who has had two or more passports lost or stolen when the Controller deems it undesirable to issue that person with another passport. Let me reassure the House that the ICA will look into the merits of each case very carefully and will exercise such powers judiciously. A citizen who has taken reasonable steps to safeguard his passport need not be too worried about being denied a passport. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasise that we expect Singaporeans to exercise due care in safeguarding their passports and to minimise the likelihood of their passports being lost or stolen. Law enforcement reasons Clause 23 of the Bill allows the Controller to refuse passports to persons for law enforcement reasons, such as to persons who have been placed under supervision of the Misuse of Drugs Act. This will ensure that they do not indulge in drug-related activities overseas. Others who may be refused passports include those who are the subject of warrants of arrest issued for seizable offences. Reasons relating to harmful misconduct ICA has cancelled the passports of Singapore citizens for national security reasons. In recent years, such actions have been taken against the Jemaah Islamiyah members who are on the run or hiding in other countries. Under clause 24 of the Bill, the Controller can refuse to issue a passport to such a person to prevent him from doing harm overseas. Since 1st September 2005, we have put in place a passport cancellation policy against the leaders of unlicensed moneylending syndicates who are convicted under the Moneylenders Act.”
“It is important for Singaporeans to promptly report the loss or theft of their passports as this allows the ICA to alert the foreign immigration authorities. Through the sharing of information on lost and stolen passports, we can contribute to curb the abuse of passports worldwide. Clause 45 of the Bill therefore makes it compulsory for Singaporeans or a person who has a parental responsibility for a Singaporean aged 16 and below to report the loss or theft of a passport within 14 days when he first knows of the fact. Cancellation/refusal of passports Sir, having the use of a Singapore passport is a privilege and not an entitlement. Clause 57 of the Bill makes it clear that every Singapore passport issued before, on or after the commencement of this Act shall be the property of the Government. In fact, this notice already appears in today's passport and in earlier versions of our passports. The Bill provides discretionary powers to the Controller to cancel Singapore passports. Besides cancelling passports that are reported lost or stolen, the Controller may also cancel or refuse to issue a passport for administrative or law enforcement reasons as well as for reasons relating to harmful misconduct which would include conduct that could prejudice the security of Singapore, endanger the health or physical safety of other persons, or constitute an offence under the Act. Let me elaborate on this. Administrative reasons While a lost or stolen passport can be cancelled, there would be some Singaporeans who will continue to be careless and fail to safeguard their passports.”
“To ensure that we have the necessary tools to safeguard the security and integrity of the Singapore passport, we need to update the Passports Act, which has not been amended since 1971, so that it reflects the realities of the current operating environment and remains relevant in today's context. Thus, this Bill repeals the existing Act, and re-enacts a new Passports Act which introduces measures against the abuse and misuse of Singapore passports and travel documents, as well as foreign travel documents. It also sets out a comprehensive regime for the issuance and handling of our passports and travel documents. Finally, the Bill provides a framework to allow the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to adopt new technologies to enhance the security of Singapore passports and travel documents. Regularising the issuance and handling of Singapore travel documents Lost and stolen passports Sir, while we have been reminding our citizens to take good care of their passports, a small number of Singaporeans still lose or have their passports stolen each year. In the current security climate, should a passport fall into the wrong hands, the consequences could be very severe. ICA will continue to highlight the importance of safekeeping our passports. Charging a replacement fee for lost passports is one way of doing so. ICA currently registers the reported loss or theft of Singapore passports in its database, to ensure that they can no longer be used for travel. However, such passports are not effectively cancelled as the present Act does not provide for cancellation under such circumstances. Clause 21 of the Bill rectifies this by vesting the Controller of Immigration with powers to cancel a Singapore passport immediately once it is reported lost or stolen.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Singapore passport is well regarded internationally because of its strong reputation as a highly secure document with several anti-tampering features. The visa-free entry that Singaporeans currently enjoy in many countries and the fact that Singapore remains a member of the US Visa-Waiver Programme attests to the confidence that foreign governments have in the integrity of our passport. However, as the Singapore passport provides easy visa-free access to many countries, it is also an attractive document for abuse. Criminal and terrorist elements are known to assume different identities using photo-substituted or fake passports to facilitate their movement between countries. As recent as late March 2007, ICA had detected foreigners who attempted to use photo-substituted foreign passports to gain illegal entry into third countries. We should also not forget the case of Hambali, the suspected planner of many terrorist attacks in Indonesia, including the October 2002 Bali bombings, who was caught in 2003. He was reported to have used a fake Spanish passport for his travels. We have been taking and will continue to take the necessary steps to prevent terrorists and other criminals from misusing and abusing the Singapore passport. On 15th August 2006, we introduced the Singapore Biometric Passport, or BioPass, for short. The BioPass, with its enhanced security features, will help ensure that the Singapore passport continues to be regarded as a highly-secure travel document.”
“Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim asked the Minister for Education if he can provide an update on the efforts to educate students on fire safety measures and whether fire safety is included in the school curriculum.”
“Over the last three years, ie, from 2004 to 2006, an average of about 49,000 persons were granted permanent resident status in Singapore while an average of about 11,000 persons were granted Singapore Citizenship. These new permanent residents and citizens were predominantly from South-East, South and East Asia. We also get immigrants from diverse places such as the Americas, Oceania and Europe. In terms of gender, males account for slightly less than half of the foreigners who were granted PR and SC. The majority of foreigners who were granted PR and SC on their own merits were predominantly professionals, managers, executives and administrators. Our records show that almost 60% of new permanent residents and about 80% of new citizens held such professions. CORRECTIVE WORK ORDER (Effectiveness in reducing littering) 6. Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources how effective is the Corrective Work Order in reducing littering problems in Singapore. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: The Corrective Work Order (CWO) is enforced against recalcitrant litterbugs, and persons who have committed serious littering offences that may give rise to vermin infestation, mosquito breeding and other public health problems. The CWO is conducted four times a year, on average. It has been effective as a deterrent. Since the introduction of CWO in November 1992, 4,336 CWOs have been issued to littering offenders. Only 3% (or 135 offenders) were caught littering again after performing CWO. In addition to enforcement, to address the littering issue, my Ministry will continue to promote environmental ownership as the key to keep our environment litter-free. FIRE SAFETY MEASURES (Schools) 7.”
“As for the specific details requested for, the Police does not have such ready statistics in the form requested. NEW CITIZENS AND PERMANENT RESIDENTS (Figures) 5. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs if he can give a breakdown of new citizens and permanent residents by country, gender and profession for the last three years.”