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 36 of 64.
“The main synthetic drugs of abuse in Singapore are amphetamine-type stimulants, particularly "Ice" and "Ecstasy". There is no rise in the abuse and distribution of these drugs in Singapore. We had anticipated the problem and took action to nip it in the bud. There are also abusers of other synthetic drugs like hallucinogens and tranquilizers but the problem of their abuse is insignificant. The number of "Ecstasy" abusers has dropped drastically from 661 in 1996 to 403 in 1997 and 180 last year. However, "Ice" abusers has increased from 5 abusers arrested in 1996, to 82 in 1997 and 117 last year. Overall, these abusers represent a small proportion of the total addict population. In 1996, "Ecstasy" and "Ice" abusers made up 12% (or 666 out of 5744) of the local addicts arrested. This fell to 10% (or 485 out of 4752) and 7% (or 297 out of 4502) respectively in 1997 and 1998. The total amount of "Ecstasy" pills seized registered a large fall from about 54,000 in 1997, to about 2,200 in 1998. The total amount of "Ice" seized saw an increase from 90 g in 1997 to 1.71 kg in 1998. These seizures are still small compared to the seizures made for other drugs. For instance, in 1998, 139 kg and 22 kg of heroin and cannabis were seized respectively. The improvement in the "Ecstasy" drug situation was a result of effective enforcement, deterrent 12 to 18 month custodial sentences given by the Courts, intensive preventive drug education, and tighter laws targeting "Ecstasy" traffickers. As for "Ice", we had anticipated the potential problem it could pose and introduced the presumption clause and death penalty for "Ice" trafficking last year.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. BUILDING OF MORE NURSING HOMES 7.51 pm”
“TCS has studied additional options to enhance news bulletins for the benefit of the hearing-impaired. "Live" sign language interpretation is used by some TV stations. However, a superimposed visual of the sign language specialist would be distracting to other viewers. Another option would be to provide open captions. However, captions have to be prepared in advance and would not reflect last minute updates in the news bulletin. Additional infrastructure and manpower would also be needed. TCS will have other options when digital television is introduced. Digital television would let viewers select additional screen information, some of which could cater primarily to the hearing-impaired audience. EMPLOYMENT OF RETRENCHED WORKERS 6. Mr Shriniwas Rai asked the Minister for Manpower how many workers retrenched in 1998 obtained employment within three months of their retrenchment.”
“The number of persons detained under the Internal Security Act for each of the years from independence in 1965 to 1998 is as follows: 9.8.65-31.12.65 : 74 1966 : 74 1967 : 68 1968 : 65 1969 : 30 1970 : 45 1971 : 12 1972 : 8 1973 : 4 1974 : 38 1975 : 17 1976 : 48 1977 : 36 1978 : 25 1979 : 2 1980 : Nil 1981 : 12 1982-1984 : Nil 1985 : 2 1986 : Nil 1987 : 18 1988 : 7 1989-1996 : Nil 1997 : 2 1998 : 4 THAI AND BENGALI RADIO PROGRAMMES 4. Mr Shriniwas Rai asked the Minister for Information and the Arts whether the Radio Corporation of Singapore will consider broadcasting during the night and public holidays programmes in Thai and Bengali for the benefit of these foreign workers. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Broadcasts in Thai and Bengali are not commercially viable and will have to be subsidised. With limited frequencies and resources, RCS' current priority is to cater to the needs of Singaporeans. RCS has an international radio station (FM 96.3) broadcasting in Japanese, French and German. These foreign language broadcasts are privately sponsored. More foreign language broadcasts may be possible in the future, when digitisation makes available more radio channels and provided there are parties willing to run or sponsor such services. SIGN-LANGUAGE NEWS WINDOW ON TELEVISION 5. Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh asked the Minister for Information and the Arts if he will consider requesting the Television Corporation of Singapore (TCS) to provide simultaneous sign-language news windows in our television news programmes so that the hearing-impaired may, at minimal cost to TCS, be able to feel a greater participation in the life of the community. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Hearing-impaired Singaporeans are able to access TCS News today via InTV and TCS' website on the Internet.”
“However, sections 37(1) and 37(2) of the MDA allow Director, Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) to commit a person, whom he reasonably suspects to be a drug addict, to undergo treatment or rehabilitation, or both, at an approved institution for a period not exceeding 3 years. As at 31st December 1998, 4,923 persons were committed to treatment and rehabilitation in the various drug rehabilitation centres. Intoxicating Substances Act The Intoxicating Substances Act also does not provide for preventive detention. However, sections 13 and 17 of the Act allow Director, CNB, to commit a person, whom he reasonably suspects to be an inhalant abuser, to undergo treatment or rehabilitation, or both, at an approved institution for a period not exceeding 6 months. As at 31st December 1998, 15 persons were committed for treatment and rehabilitation at inhalant centres. DETENTION UNDER THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT 3. Mr Simon S C Tay asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the number of persons detained under the Internal Security Act for each of the years from independence in 1965 to 1998.”
“Internal Security Act A total of 6 persons are presently subjects of Order of Detention (DO) under the Internal Security Act (ISA). Four of them have been released from custody under Suspension Direction of the DOs. These persons were arrested and detained in 1997 and 1998 for involvement in espionage activities. In the 1997 case, the 2 persons involved were a female Singaporean and a male Singapore Permanent Resident. The man was a deep-cover operative of a foreign intelligence service. He used the woman as his collaborator. In the 1998 case, the 4 persons detained were all male Singapore citizens. Three of them were agents who worked for another intelligence service. One of them recruited the fourth detainee as his conscious collaborator to collect intelligence on and to subvert a certain local community organisation. Four of these detainees (the 2 in the 1997 case and 2 from the 1998 case) have since been released under Suspension Directions after serving periods of detention ranging from 4 to 11 months. This followed ISD's recommendations that their preventive detentions were no longer necessary for reasons of continuing investigation or of their posing an active threat to national security. The remaining two individuals have been held under Orders of Detention since March and July 1998 respectively. Investigations on them are still continuing. Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act As at 31st December 1998, 450 were detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. Misuse of Drugs Act The Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) does not provide for preventive detention.”
“Criteria The Police take into account factors such as the proposed programme of the event, the nature of the speeches, the suitability of the site, and the timing of the event, when considering applications. Speeches which are political in nature, or on race, language or religion which can elicit disaffection or highly emotional responses may only be held indoors, or within stadiums or athletics centres. This is because such speeches have a higher propensity for law and order problems, and an indoor or controlled setting would allow the licensee better control over the access and behaviour of the audience. Processing Time The Police normally takes about 3 weeks to process an application. The actual time needed to process an application would vary, depending on the nature of the proposed event. RECURRENCE OF SMOKE HAZE POLLUTION 28. Mr Simon S C Tay asked the Minister for the Environment whether the recurrence of the smoke haze pollution at the end of November and start of December 1998 signifies that illegal fires are still evident in Indonesia and whether the ASEAN Haze Action Plan has, to an extent, been ineffective.”
“There are no changes to the PR application procedure. Applicants have to submit completed application forms together with supporting documents such as their educational certificates, to SIR's Permanent Resident Services Centre. These application forms are available at the SIR Building and Contact Singapore offices overseas. Points are allocated on the basis of the following factors: a) Type of Work Pass b) Duration of Stay in Singapore c) Academic Qualification d) Basic Monthly Salary e) Age f) Kinship Ties in Singapore The Points System allows a more comprehensive assessment of the PR application, where particular strengths such as a good employment track record would make up for, say, absence of kinship ties in Singapore. It has been well publicised in the media. However, we will not disclose the detailed guidelines nor how the points are allocated to prevent abuse, such as applicants over-declaring to fit into the approval profile. PUBLIC SPEECHES UNDER THE PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENTS ACT 27. Mr Simon S C Tay asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will clarify the procedures, criteria and processing time for applications to give public speeches under the Public Entertainments Act, especially for political parties and civil society groups. Mr Wong Kan Seng: Procedures Anyone wishing to deliver a public speech is required to apply for a public entertainment licence, on a prescribed form, from the Police Licensing Officer. The Police would inform the applicant, in writing or by phone, of its outcome as soon as the application has been processed. The successful applicant would have to pay the required fee and collect the licence from the Police Licensing Unit at Pearl's Hill.”
“So do not attempt to drive with both hands on the handphone. I now come to Mr Ong Kian Min's questions. His main point is really to impose an immediate suspension on those who are found or suspected to have alcohol beyond the limit in his blood. I would ask the police to look into this and, if necessary, we may do as he suggests. But I think we have to take the measures one step at a time and we will see whether it is necessary to impose such a disqualification or not the next time when I look at the Road Traffic Act. On the question of definition of mobile phone driving and whether it is adequate or not, if there is a need to re-define it after we have put the new law into force, we will re-define it. The way it is defined now, I think, is adequate. If it is not, I will consider amending the definition. Dr Wang Kai Yuen talked about enhancing the punishment for motorists who cause death while driving a vehicle. In 1996 I amended the Act to provide for enhanced punishment for this offence. So far, the situation is good. Of course, from time to time, we have very serious cases and we all get very worked up over such irresponsible driving behaviour, but we have to take such incidents, not just a particular one, in perspective. If we were to enhance the punishment for accidents which resulted in death, we would have to re-look at the rest of the offences and see whether it is in proportion or in keeping with the sentences of the other offences. But we will bear that in mind. 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. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1-”
“This is not meant to be punitive but to be preventive so that these people do not waste the court's time, the police's time and everybody else's time in trying to chase after them. Dr Lily Neo also asked that since section 65 already can take care of handphone driving, why do we need section 65B to make it a specific offence. We want to have a specific offence for handphone driving so as to provide more flexibility to the Traffic Police in dealing with handphone driving. If we do not do that, they will find that of all the offences under section 65, only one of them, for example, handphone driving, is very serious, and if they want to enhance the punishment for the offence by increasing the demerit points and imposing the fine, they will have to increase it for all the offences under section 65. We think we do not have to take such a blunderbuss approach. It is better that we create a distinct offence so that the police will have greater flexibility to vary the composition fine and the demerit points and to take any other action or measure against the offender without affecting the other motorists who commit offences under the more general provision of section 65 of the Act. I have talked earlier about a handphone driver trying to drive with both hands holding his handphone and leaving the steering wheel free. If he does so, he will be committing a more serious offence, and that is called dangerous driving. Dangerous driving is punishable with a fine not exceeding $3,000 or imprisonment up to 12 months, or both, for a first offence. For a second and subsequent offence, the person would be liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to an imprisonment term not exceeding two years, or both. So this is more serious than just a handphone driving offence.”
“The analogy of Dr Neo is that a mother or parent convicted of abusing the - I believe it is not persecuting but abusing the child - means that the parent cannot have children. I think that is not the correct analogy. On whether it is too harsh under section 42A to disqualify a person for failure to turn up in Court, I think we have tried very hard to get these people with warrants of arrest to turn up in Court. I think the patience of the Warrant Enforcement Unit and the Police as well as the Court is wearing thin. People just ignore warrants of arrest. There are more than 55,000 warrants of arrest outstanding and there are hundreds of people with 10 or more warrants of arrest in their names. So, we have to take a very serious view of people who totally disregard the law of Singapore and show contempt of the Court when ordered by the Court to turn up and they did not turn up. We will have to deal with such people who simply refuse to turn up in Court. When an offender executes a warrant of arrest, that is, when he surrenders to the Traffic Police or goes to the Warrant Enforcement Unit, the Police would inform him that if he fails to turn up in Court at the hearing date, then an order of disqualification may be preferred against him. In other words, a warning will be given to that motorist to turn up in Court because failure to turn up in Court means that an application will be made to the Court to disqualify the driver. I think that is fair. If not, people would just take for granted that any notice to attend court can simply be ignored. I think that is not a good healthy thing to encourage in Singapore.”
“But this amendment is necessary now to formally state Singapore's recognition of the foreign driving licences or driving permits issued by the signatory states. As the recognition of driving licence is for a period of only one year, a foreigner staying in Singapore for more than one year is required to obtain a Singapore driving licence. However, if the driving licence is valid for a period of less than one year, then the driving licence would only be recognised for the period of the validity of the foreign driving licence. Foreigners who wish to remain here and drive for more than a year should convert to a Singapore driving licence. On the question of section 42 on road bullies, this section is targeted at motorists who show violent behaviour when reacting to situations connected to driving. As a result of situations such as flashing of head lamps, overtaking and disputes over parking spaces, motorists have been known to cause serious injury to other persons. Innocent road users should not be subjected to the potential danger posed by such motorists. Hence, those who exhibit such violent behaviour when reacting to situations arising from the use of the road and choose to take the law into their own hands should be penalised for the errant act. There is no question of double penalty. It is just part of the penalty imposed by the Court. For example, in many of our offences, we say that the Court can impose a fine, a jail or both. By fining the person and jailing him at the same time, we are not saying that the Court is punishing him twice. It is the same punishment. Now we just add another one called "disqualification". If one commits certain offences of the Road Traffic Act, one can also be subject to disqualification. So there is no double punishment as such.”
“Persons convicted under the new provision would not be liable to mandatory disqualification. However, the Court has a discretionary power under section 42 of the Road Traffic Act to disqualify any offender of any traffic offence which it considers serious enough. If the Court thinks that it is very serious, the Court may order a disqualification. Prof Chin also asked whether in densely populated areas and expressways and so on, we should not require car sellers to ensure that their cars which they sell should have hands-free mobile phones. I think we will leave it to the car sellers because not all motorists want to have a car phone. So fixing a car phone and charging motorists may not be a fair thing to do. We will leave it to the market to decide. Although the use of hands-free kits for driving is not an offence, the Traffic Police would want to encourage people to refrain from using the hands-free kits as far as possible. Let me now come to Dr Lily Neo's comments. She said that the old section 38 is confined only to Malaysians. Yes, indeed it is. Singapore is a signatory to the United Nations Conference on Road and Motor Transport Convention on Road Traffic, 1949, and as an contracting state to this Convention, we have to recognise the driving permits or licences. They mean the same thing; some countries call it a permit, some countries call it a licence, so there is no confusion here. They are issued by contracting parties for a period of up to one year without requiring the motorist to sit for any driving test. The Road Traffic Act did not formally recognise the obligations under the Convention in the past.”
“If people would do what Dr Lily Neo thinks that holding it with two hands, and they are not committing an offence, I would suggest that they try it and they will see whether they will be committing an offence or not. They will be committing an offence, maybe not for handphone driving but for dangerous driving which will carry a much more serious punishment. So do not try it. I come to the question of whether it is an offence when a person uses the phone when the vehicle is stationary or when he stops at a traffic junction, and when he moves off, he stops communicating. There is no offence if the driver uses his mobile phone without the hands-free kit while the vehicle is stationary, including while waiting at the junction for the lights to change, as long as the driver stops using the phone immediately when he moves his vehicle. The proposed amendment makes it an offence to hold on to a communication or telecommunication device and communicate with another person only when the vehicle is in motion. So when the motorist calls on the mobile phone and listens to a voice-mail, he is "talking" to that person, and he will be committing an offence. Again, do not think that he can get away by just talking to a voice-mail and that he is not talking to another person. It must be a person who left the voice-mail. The motorist should concentrate on driving and controlling his vehicle and looking at the road and traffic situation when the vehicle is moving. Therefore, I would advise motorists in general not to use the phone unless it is absolutely necessary and if they have to use it, do use a hands-free kit. Prof Chin also asked whether persons who are convicted of using mobile phones under the provision are subject to disqualification of the licence.”
“On dangerous driving and why we arrest people without a warrant, dangerous and reckless driving is a serious offence. It carries 24 demerit points on conviction. It is therefore imperative that the Police has the powers to immediately detain the offender, investigate the case and then produce the offender in Court as soon as possible. But if we were to take the normal course of events like now, it will take up to a few weeks to have the offender produced in Court by way of Notice to Attend Court. So this proposed amendment is meant to empower the Traffic Police to deal with such drivers in a decisive and expeditious manner so that they cannot further endanger the lives of other road users. The Police will use these powers judiciously. They have administered section 64 of the Road Traffic Act for many years and they know from experience the circumstances under which an offence is classified as dangerous driving or reckless driving, rash driving or negligent driving. They will use their years of experience to classify these cases and deal with the case accordingly before the person is arrested for dangerous driving. On the question of car phones and whether car phones which were already installed in the cars in the past are still in use, yes, they are still in use. Drivers who use the car phones without the hands-free kits while driving would be committing an offence. The proposed amendment is meant to cover all kinds of hand-held communication equipment. So walkie-talkie would also be counted as a communication device. The driver is said to have committed an offence if he holds it in one hand and uses it to communicate with another person.”
“Sir, I thank the Members for speaking in support of the Bill. Let me try to deal with the points raised by each of the Members. Prof Chin asked why did we deliberately exclude sections 334 and 335 of the Penal Code from the amendments. Yes, we have indeed deliberately excluded sections 334 and 335 of the Penal Code as these relate to offences committed on provocation. In the situation where a motorist reacts to provocation, depending on the circumstances of the case, he may not necessarily be a road bully. Nevertheless, he would be punished under the Penal Code for his actions. As the amendment is meant to deal with road bullies, the Bill therefore has made a distinction between the cases which involve provocation. On the question of other kinds of help and rehabilitation of offenders and suggestions of social counselling and so on, I think all Members agree that motorists who flout our traffic laws should be penalised so that they realise the seriousness of the offences which they commit. However, for some of the less serious traffic offences, I agree that there may be scope to consider other forms of censure or punishment which could complement the existing forms of penalties. Currently, we know that offenders who are liable for suspension for their first or second time are already being given the chance to attend the one-day retraining course. This course consists of defensive driving skills, inculcation of good driving habits and so on. A remission of the suspension period will be granted if the motorist passes the course. I will study whether it is appropriate to adopt other measures suggested by Prof Chin, for example, community service or compulsory counselling for certain groups of traffic offenders.”
“Finally, given the potential dangers of using handphones and being distracted by them in high-density populated areas or fast expressways, and given the ubiquitous nature of the handphone these days, is it not time to require car sellers to ensure that any car they supply should be provided with a mobile phone car kit? Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendments to the Road Traffic Act are important measures to improve the safety of our roads. I support the Bill.”
“This is always an unsatisfactory situation, because views may differ from officer to officer, and drivers may feel genuine grievance in being charged with such an offence. Indeed, if the Bill is passed today, the driver can be arrested on the spot without a warrant. I would like to appeal to the Minister to consider redefining this offence at the next available opportunity. Mobile phones: Clause 12 enacts a new section 65B that makes it a specific offence to use a mobile phone while driving. This is especially welcome. Cases have been reported where the use of handphones had distracted drivers, resulting in accidents, sometimes serious; sometimes fatal. However, I have a few queries relating to the new provision that I hope the Minister will address. First, car phones. Before the advent of the handphone or mobile phone, some cars may have car phones installed. These phones are similar to desktop phones, that is, the driver may still need to hold the handset to speak. He then is still "using" the phone, as defined in the amendments. Are these types of car phones still in use, and, if so, are they exempt from the legislation? The new definition of "mobile telephone" is certainly wide enough to cover this - is this intended? Second, the offence, as defined, is a "moving offence", that is, no offence would be committed if the driver were to use his mobile phone at any time while the car is stationary, such as waiting at the junction for the lights to change. Can the Minister confirm that that is also the intention of the legislation? Third, are persons convicted of using mobile phones under this provision subject to disqualification of licence? It would be good if such an option were present to deter offenders repeating the offence.”
“The technique adopted to control traffic offenders are fines, terms of imprisonment and/or disqualification. That there must be such types of punishment, there can be no doubt. But I would like to say that we should look into alternative means of rehabilitating the offenders. This may include the requirement to undergo social counselling, a course on road manners, or a stint in community service. The intention is to make drivers more socially conscious. I believe that many Members have come across in their Meet-the-People sessions, drivers who have been, or are facing, disqualification. More often than not, these drivers are the sole breadwinners in fairly large families. Disqualification, even for a short period, directly affects the welfare of the family in general. Disqualification should therefore be used after all other means of educating the errant driver have failed. Dangerous driving: I turn next to clause 11 purporting to amend section 64 of the Act to allow for the arrest without warrant of drivers charged for "reckless or dangerous driving". My first question is: why is there a need for such a power? Have there been occasions where the offender on the road has to be immediately apprehended? How will officers be advised to be cautious about the use of this power to arrest without a warrant? Perhaps, the Minister can let us know how these matters will be dealt with by the Police. In this context, I believe it is unfortunate that the opportunity has not been taken to review the offence of "reckless or dangerous driving". The language defining the offence is couched widely and very much dependent on the officer's perception of what constitutes driving that is "dangerous to the public".”
“Road users must be protected from the irresponsible, the inconsiderate and the insensitive. There are several points that I would like to raise, not in objection to the legislation, but to clarify the provisions and intention of the legislation. First, road bullies - clause 5. This new provision is complicated. It refers to several provisions in the Penal Code regarding the causing of death, grievous hurt or hurt. It then provides that if a driver or a person in charge of a vehicle were to commit any of the offences referred to, in relation to a dispute on the road, he may be disqualified from holding a licence, if the judge is of the view that "it is undesirable for the offender" to drive a vehicle. First, the reference to only certain Penal Code offences. It is quite likely that in a dispute between road users, the hurt caused by one may be the result of provocation by another. The Penal Code provides for voluntary causing hurt and grievous hurt due to provocation in sections 334 and 335 respectively. These provisions which allow for lighter punishments where provocation exists are not mentioned in the new section 42(1A). I should like to ask the Minister whether these provisions are deliberately excluded from the amendments - so that those convicted under these sections will not be subject to disqualification of licence. I would support such exclusion. What I would not like to see, however, is a situation where the prosecutors charge the drivers under the sections mentioned in the amendment, but not sections 334 and 335, even though the facts suggest the presence of provocation. This may result in the offender getting a heavier sentence and disqualification even though there was provocation. Second, I turn to the types of punishment.”
“Other amendments Sir, now I come to other amendments. The Bill also proposes a number of other minor amendments. For example, to address the Singapore Civil Defence Force's operational need for more drivers, especially heavy-vehicle drivers, clause 9 seeks to amend section 49 of the Road Traffic Act to include SCDF, in addition to the SAF, as a competent driving authority for certifying and issuing restricted driving licences to its personnel to drive vehicles owned by SCDF. Clause 10 of the Bill seeks to amend section 62 so that the minimum qualifying age for driving licence holders of invalid carriages is raised to 18 years old, similar to that of the existing minimum qualifying age for a motorcycle licence and a motorcar licence. To clarify the legal position for foreign motorists and visiting forces, clause 4 of the Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact section 38 to consolidate the laws relating to foreign driving licences and driving licences of members of the visiting forces. Conclusion Sir, this Bill will send a strong signal to all motorists that we do not condone bad driving habits and take a stern view towards irresponsible behaviour that puts the safety of other motorists and road-users at risk. The Traffic Police will continue with its public education programmes and messages to drive home the importance of road safety and safe driving. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. These amendments cover two specific types of behaviour on the roads - not just anti-social behaviour, but behaviour that may endanger both life and limb, namely, "road bullies" and drivers who use mobile phones without proper hands-free kits. The legislation in this regard is to be particularly welcome.”
“But it is not always able to arrest them because the motorists concerned may have either shifted homes or do not reside at the addresses provided in the official records. Currently, a motorist with an outstanding warrant of arrest relating to an offence under the Road Traffic Act or Parking Places Act is allowed to renew his driving licence as soon as he has executed his warrant of arrest. Execution here means surrendering himself to a Police station or the Warrant Enforcement Unit, and he is formally arrested. But during the period when the motorist is released on bail pending the Court hearing, some jump bail and do not attend the scheduled Court hearing, thus necessitating the issue of a fresh warrant of arrest. This is a blatant abuse of the Court process. To curb such abuse, a motorist with outstanding warrants of arrest will not be allowed to renew his driving licence until the Court has conclusively dealt with the case. Firstly, clause 3 of the Bill seeks to amend section 35(8) to empower the Deputy Commissioner of Police to refuse to renew the driving licence of the motorist until after the offence has been tried and determined by the Court. Secondly, clause 6 seeks to introduce a new section 42A in the Road Traffic Act to give the Court the discretion to disqualify a motorist possessing a valid driving licence from driving if he has failed to attend Court after being arrested under a warrant and released on bail. In the case of a foreign driving licence holder, the Court will, in lieu of disqualification, issue a prohibition order under the new section 47F to prohibit him from driving on our roads pending the determination of his case. The period of disqualification or prohibition will be left to the Court's discretion.”
“In June last year, for example, a trailer driver was attacked with a screwdriver by a road bully and warded in the hospital for two days for injuries to his head, back and neck because of a dispute over the right of way along the East Coast Parkway. The road bully was convicted and sentenced to eight months' jail by the Court. The Courts are currently empowered to disqualify driving licences of motorists for driving-related offences, eg, dangerous driving, but not for their conduct, eg, assaulting another driver or his passenger. We are proposing to empower the Courts to disqualify drivers who are road bullies from holding driving licences if they are convicted of various Penal Code offences, including voluntarily causing hurt and voluntarily causing grievous hurt to other drivers or their passengers, arising from disputes over the use of a road or public place, such as road accidents. Clause 5 of the Bill seeks to amend section 42 to give effect to this. The period of the disqualification will be left to the Court to decide. Proposals to reduce the number of motorists with outstanding warrants of arrest Let me now touch on the amendments relating to the proposed measure against motorists with outstanding warrants of arrest. There were 54,000 outstanding warrants of arrest relating to traffic and parking offences as at 30th November last year. 300 motorists had 10 or more outstanding warrants of arrest. Warrants of arrest are issued against persons who fail to turn up in Court when ordered to do so by the Courts. We should take a serious view of such people because they basically have no regard for our Courts. On its part, the Police mounts regular operations to arrest motorists with outstanding warrants of arrest, including paying house visits to their homes.”
“The problem is clearly manifested in the number of summonses issued by the Traffic Police for handphone driving, which has surged from 400 in 1993 to 2,100 in 1997. In January-November last year, 1,700 summonses were issued to motorists for handphone driving. Just imagine the number of handphone drivers who have not been caught. To signal the seriousness of the offence, clause 12 of the Bill introduces a new section 65B to make the act of using a mobile phone while driving a specific offence in the Road Traffic Act. The Bill defines "use" of handphone to mean holding it in one hand while using it to communicate with any person. The amendment will also give the Traffic Police greater flexibility to vary the penalties for the offence of handphone driving to ensure that they are adequately deterrent. The penalty for a first offender upon conviction in Court is a fine of up to $1,000 or a jail term of up to six months, or both. For a repeat offender, the penalty is a fine of up to $2,000 or a jail term of up to one year, or both. These penalties are similar to existing penalties for inconsiderate driving. Road bullies Fourthly, road bullies. Empowering the Court to disqualify drivers who are road bullies. Road bullies were a major cause of public concern in the late-eighties and early-nineties. In 1991, for example, 35 motorists were charged in Court for causing hurt to fellow motorists. Fortunately, a combination of tough Police enforcement and deterrent sentences handed down by the Courts, including jail terms, have helped to keep the problem in check. But the problem still rears its ugly head from time to time.”
“Clause 7 of the Bill seeks to amend section 47C to empower the Deputy Commissioner of Police to suspend the driving licence of a motorist once he has been charged in Court for any of the following offences: (a) Causing death to any person by dangerous or reckless driving under section 66 of the Road Traffic Act; (b) Causing death to any person while committing a rash or negligent act under section 304A of the Penal Code; (c) Causing serious injury to any person by dangerous or reckless driving under section 64 of the Road Traffic Act; and (d) Causing serious injury to any person while committing a rash or negligent act which endangers life under section 279 of the Penal Code. The proposal will give the Traffic Police more flexibility in dealing with motorists who threaten the safety and security of other road users. However, I would like to assure Members that the Traffic Police will exercise these powers judiciously and only in clear-cut cases, like the Bendemeer Road case. Handphone driving offenders Thirdly, making handphone driving a specific offence. Handphone driving offenders are currently charged for inconsiderate driving under section 65 of the Road Traffic Act. First-time offenders are usually offered composition, which attracts a fine of $170 and 9 demerit points. Subsequent offenders are charged in Court and, if convicted, the Court can order the forfeiture of their handphones. Handphone drivers are a menace to other road-users as they are less likely to be able to control their vehicles properly. With handphones becoming very affordable today, the problem of handphone driving is likely to worsen unless we nip the problem in the bud.”
“Hence, a holder of a foreign driving licence who is convicted for the first time for driving on Singapore roads despite being prohibited from doing so would face a similar penalty. Motorists who cause death or serious injury through dangerous or reckless driving, etc. Secondly, motorists who cause death or serious injury through dangerous or reckless driving, etc, will have their licence suspended once they have been charged in Court. Currently, under section 47C of the Road Traffic Act, DCP can suspend the driving licence of a motorist once the motorist has been charged in Court for the offences of causing death or serious injury while driving under the influence of alcohol exceeding the prescribed limit, a drug or an intoxicating substance, or without insurance coverage. The suspension prevents the motorist from driving and endangering the lives of other motorists and road-users, pending trial. However, DCP is not empowered to do so for all other offences, no matter how serious they may be. What this means is that until the Courts decide on the case, which may be up to a few months, the motorist can still drive if he wants to although he is a proven risk to other road users. This situation is clearly unsatisfactory. Members of the House may still recall the tragic accident that occurred at Bendemeer Road in May last year, which the Court dealt with recently. In that accident, a sports car ploughed into a crowded bus stop at Bendemeer Road, killing three women and injuring six others, some permanently disabled. The Court has sentenced the accused to two years' jail and disqualified him from driving all classes of vehicles for life. But it took six months for the case to be concluded.”
“Singapore driving licence holders can have their driving licences suspended once they have accumulated 24 demerit points or more over a two-year period under the DIPS. In addition, Singapore driving licence holders who commit serious traffic offences can have their driving licence suspended by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) pending trial, or disqualified from driving by the Courts after conviction for the offence. As Singapore is not the issuing authority for foreign driving licences, our laws do not currently empower DCP to suspend these licences nor the Courts to disqualify holders of foreign driving licences from driving on our roads. It is timely to rectify this anomaly because a significant number of foreign motorists have been involved in fatal and injury accidents on Singapore roads in recent years. Of the 271 motorists who were involved in fatal accidents in January-November last year, 67, or 25%, of them were foreigners. In fact, since 1994, roughly one in five motorists who were killed on our roads were foreigners. Clause 8 will introduce a new section 47F to empower the Court and DCP to prohibit holders of foreign driving licences from driving on our roads if they accumulate a certain number of demerit points under DIPS to attract suspension by DCP, or if they are convicted or have committed offences in the Road Traffic Act that attract suspension or disqualification. The penalties that currently apply to a motorist convicted of driving while under suspension or disqualification shall similarly apply to holders of foreign driving licences who breach the prohibition order. For example, the penalty for a first-time offender who is convicted of driving while under suspension is a fine of $5,000 or a jail term of one year, or both.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Since the Road Traffic Act (RTA) was last amended in 1996, the number of fatal and injury traffic accidents has remained fairly constant. There were 5,700 such accidents in 1996, 5,600 in 1997, and 5,200 for the period January to November 1998. Our roads are generally safe. This is due to the success of the two-pronged strategy of public education and strict enforcement adopted by the Traffic Police (TP). For many years now, TP has been organising annual campaigns to educate motorists on road safety. In May 1997, TP organised the Speed Management Campaign for the first time because speeding has become the single most prevalent cause of road fatalities in Singapore. It also organises annual Anti-Drink Drive Campaign to coincide with the year-end festive season. Although most motorists have responded positively to TP's public education campaigns, a minority has continued to display irresponsible and dangerous driving habits. The proposed amendments in this Bill are targeted primarily at four groups of such motorists, namely, foreign motorists who flout our road traffic laws, motorists who cause death or serious injury through dangerous or reckless driving, handphone driving offenders and road bullies. Extension of the Driver Improvement Points System to holders of foreign driving licence Firstly, the Driver Improvement Points System (DIPS) will be extended to include holders of foreign driving licences. Currently, the TP administers the DIPS, which awards demerit points for the more serious traffic offences such as speeding, dangerous or reckless driving, beating red lights and failure to give way.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, under Standing Order No. 42(2), the motion for the adjournment of the House shall lapse at the moment of interruption. As the debate on the teaching of Chinese Language in Schools and the items of business appearing on the Order Paper for today are likely to go beyond the moment of interruption, may I therefore seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move to exempt the motion for the adjournment of the House from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1.”
“Sir, I think we have heard enough today. Tomorrow we have eight more Bills. Please come back tomorrow. I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes to Seven o'clock pm.”
“Sir, it is quite strange that Mr Low Thia Khiang has made the accusation that the Government has failed to foresee these economic difficulties. I am not sure whether he heard his Secretary-General, Mr Jeyaretnam, a few hours ago in this House relating a story about a banker friend of his who told him that way back in 1996, he already knew that we would face this problem. Had Mr Low been informed by Mr Jeyaretnam about that story he heard from his banker friend and raised it in this House, then today he would have been proclaimed a prophet. Unfortunately, his Secretary-General, when he first stepped into this House in 1997, also did not raise this subject of his conversation with his banker friend and thereby depriving him of the opportunity of making a political point against this Government for failing to foresee this serious crisis. But I think Members, having heard 13 MPs who have spoken today and the statement by the DPM and all the clarifications that have been asked this evening, would think that it is enough already for the day. So we will call it a day. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE Resolved, "That the Debate be now adjourned." [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Mr Speaker: Debate to be resumed on what day, Mr Lee?”
“Some Members may want to seek clarification on the points raised by the DPM. Although Members are not allowed to make a speech a second time, if there is any point to clarify, DPM is happy to take the questions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 45 in respect of the speech to be made by the Deputy Prime Minister, BG Lee Hsien Loong? Sir, DPM BG Lee will be giving the Government's full and comprehensive response to the Report of the Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness afterwards. In order that he will be able to speak unaffected by the time, I propose to move this motion.”
“112,732 and 44,730 people were granted permanent residence and citizenship status from 1991-95 respectively. HEALTHCARE FOR THE ELDERLY 5. Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh asked the Minister for Health, concerning healthcare for the elderly, (a) what kind of medical subsidy is given to the aged sick who have no Central Provident Fund savings or medical security funds; (b) what schemes his Ministry can offer to lighten the burden of the "sandwiched generation" of young working adults who are stressed by having to use their own Medisave to pay for the increasing medical expenses of their aged parents; and (c) if his Ministry will consider offering more substantial medical subsidies for the aged as a recognition of their contribution to nation building.”
“We will guide him and the Chairman would give him a lot of leeway before he makes further mistakes. So we need not worry about strangers not being able to speak freely before a Select Committee. As Members know, whatever evidence they give to a Select Committee is also protected by the privileges of the Act, and in the case of Sivadas, as Mr Tay mentioned, he wrote a submission to the Select Committee on the Companies (Amendment) Bill and he made many comments. As a result, some people took him to court. He finally petitioned to the Petitions Committee which decided to leave it to the Court. The Court decided that his submission is protected under the privileges of the Act and therefore the plaintiff lost the case. So the public can be rest assured that if they speak up, they should not fear that their views will be conscribed. 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. EMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGN WORKERS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Tay is concerned about strangers coming before a Select Committee and not knowing the rules on how to conduct themselves and whether the freedom to speak before a Committee is being conscribed, just because they do not know the rules. Let me assure him that he need not have such worry. At the beginning, when the Clerk of Parliament advertises in the press asking for submissions, he has already warned would-be representors that they should not publish any evidence or documents they have given to the Select Committee before the Select Committee finalises its report. That is in one of the paragraphs in the advertisement. When a person comes before a Select Committee, we treat him very gently, kindly and considerately. We do not brow beat or shout at him. We treat him like any member of the public who wants to give his views to us and we welcome his views. It is only when he has started to wander around and not follow the rules that the Speaker would definitely try to put the person back and say, "Look, that is not the way to do things. Please let me give you some advice. Do not stray beyond the point. Tell us the truth and be honest about it." If Members remember the case of Dr Chee Soon Juan, in one of our Select Committee hearings, he talked about health care costs and presented papers and data. Eventually, that matter led to a complaint to the Committee of Priviledges. Even at that Committee of Privileges, he was given a lot of leeway by the Chairman of the Committee. But in the end, he decided to carry on with his way and resulted in him and his other colleagues being fined by Parliament for committing perjury and fabrication of data, etc. So anyone who comes before a Select Committee, we will be very kind to him.”
“For such people, members of the public, I think we have to ask ourselves whether they know the kind of possibilities that face them when they come before a Select Committee. I do not, of course, mean that they should shy away from doing their citizens' duties. But I would encourage the Minister, in moving this amendment, to follow this up with the assistance of the Speaker in providing more information to those who come before Select Committees. Secondly, the question then comes off: would these members of the public be better off being judged by the courts? I think that is not necessarily the case because the court itself, as the Minister has said, has decided that this House should be the judge of its own proceedings, its own internal affairs. But I would caution the House in reaching this conclusion, the decision of the court related to a Member of Parliament, and not a member of the public. As regards members of the public who come before this House and might commit contempt and might therefore be subject to proceedings by this House, I would encourage this House to be, first, judicious and sparing in the use of its powers when we close off the possible avenue of using the courts and, second, liberal in recognising the right of ordinary citizens to speak and give their opinions before this House in its Select Committee meetings, even if it disagrees with the sentiments, provided of course that such sentiments do not amount to gross contempt. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Clause 2 of the Bill amends section 21 of the Act to remove the option of referring a complaint of contempt to the Attorney-General for prosecution if that complaint has already been the subject of investigation by a Select Committee. The amendments would, however, not remove from Parliament the power to refer a matter directly to the Attorney-General with a view to prosecution where it is considered more appropriate for the offender to be dealt with by the Courts. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Mr Simon Tay: Sir, the privileges of debate in this House against defamation and other proceedings in court are well known and enjoyed by Members here. This is very important because this Chamber should be open to all ideas, free of the chilling effect of possible legal suit. Less well-known, Sir, is the fact that these privileges are extended in a qualified manner to members of the public, ordinary citizens, who choose to speak before our Select Committees. This is confirmed by the case of Sivadas. The present amendments now try to reconcile, as the Minister has said, a possible clash between the courts, on the one hand, and this House, on the other. I think that, in principle, this is correct. As far as Members of Parliament go, I have no objections. We, as Members of Parliament, whether elected, nominated, NCMPs, should know the rules. My concern relates more to non-MPs, non-Members of the House, who choose to come before the House to provide their opinion in Select Committee affairs. In such cases, if the House should choose to decide to cite such persons for contempt, Parliament would be in effect a judge in its own cause. The hearings would not necessarily be public and this House, if I may say, is clearly numerically dominated by one party.”
“It is better for Parliament to deal expeditiously with the matter after the Select Committee produces its Report. The option could also result in uneasy relations between Parliament and the Judiciary. This arises when the matter is referred to the Attorney-General with a view to prosecution after a Select Committee has already investigated into the matter. Police investigations would have to be carried out afresh. There could be the possibility that, at the end of the day, the Courts may rule that no offence of contempt has been committed despite Parliament's decision to send the matter to the Attorney-General with a view to prosecution. The principle that any possible conflict between the Courts and Parliament should be avoided is applicable here. As I have said earlier, our Courts have held that Parliament has the right to control its own proceedings and regulate its internal affairs without interference from the Courts. In addition, the rationale for referring cases to the Attorney-General with a view to prosecution is no longer relevant. This bifurcated procedure was introduced in 1962 when Parliament was then expressly prohibited by the Act from exercising powers of committal, ie, imprisonment. Also, the penalties that the Courts could mete out for offences under the Act were then much higher. It was therefore necessary then to retain an avenue to the Courts so that the higher penalties could be handed down by the Courts in appropriately bad cases involving contempt based on the Select Committee's Report. In 1986, the Act was amended to confer on Parliament the power to commit persons for contempt and to fine them up to $50,000. With these enhanced powers to deal with contempt, Parliament would no longer need to refer such cases for prosecution.”
“Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 23 of the Act to make any fine imposed by Parliament recoverable as though it is a judgement debt due to the Government, that is to say, a sum of money ordered by a Court as payable. With the amendment, it would no longer be necessary to first sue for the fine before recovering it. Writs of execution as well as bankruptcy proceedings may immediately be instituted if the offender fails to pay up the fine imposed by Parliament by the due date. The amendment would facilitate the recovery of fines by the Attorney-General on behalf of the State. Contempt I now come to the second amendment on contempt. Currently, under section 21(1) and (2) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, Parliament can deal with incidents of contempt in the following ways: (a) deal summarily with the offender; (b) refer the matter to a Select Committee for investigation and report; or (c) refer the matter to the Attorney-General with a view to instituting criminal proceedings against the person. Where the matter is referred to a Select Committee, Parliament on receiving the Select Committee's report, has the further option of either dealing with the offender itself or referring the matter to the Attorney-General with a view to prosecution. The option to refer the matter to the Attorney-General with a view to prosecution in Court after a Select Committee has dealt with it is unnecessary. It has no discernible benefit and only lengthens the process. Parliament already has the power to punish for contempt. This is a proper exercise of parliamentary authority. The punishments are set out in the Act. This option is also circuitous as Parliament could have in the first place referred the matter to the Attorney-General instead of to a Select Committee.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this is a straightforward Bill. It makes two amendments to the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act (Cap 217). Their objectives are to simplify procedures under the Act and avoid duplication of effort and risk of conflicts between Parliament and the Courts. The first amendment facilitates the recovery of fines imposed by Parliament in exercise of its penal jurisdiction. The second amendment improves procedures to allow Parliament to deal more expeditiously with contempt if one of its committees has already investigated into the matter. Recovery of fines Let me deal with the first amendment on recovery of fines. Currently, section 23(2) of the Act provides that fines imposed by Parliament have to be sued for in a civil Court first before they could be recovered from the errant party. This procedure is not satisfactory as it wastes the Court's time and incurs unnecessary cost for the State. Section 23 of the Act does not define the role which the Court should play in presiding over a suit to recover the fines as a civil debt. If the Court's role is merely to formalise the fine imposed by Parliament into a judgement, it is an unnecessary duplication of work. If it enables the person fined to contest the legality of the fine, it would amount to allowing the Court to overrule the decision of Parliament. The law should avoid any possible conflict between Parliament and the Courts. For this reason, our Courts have held that Parliament has the right to control its own proceedings and regulate its own internal affairs without interference from the Courts.”
“Sir, the Elections Department has also studied exit voting, in other words, people going overseas and they want to vote before they go away. I think there are also other complications and we have decided to stay with the present system. Polling Day is fixed. If a person decides to make a trip abroad because he cannot change the date, so be it. He goes. Otherwise, he could make an alternative arrangement, which is to stay at home and vote on Polling Day. USE OF MALAYSIAN AIRSPACE BY REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE AIR FORCE (Restrictions) 15. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence how the Malaysian Government's decision to terminate various arrangements governing the use of Malaysian airspace by the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) will affect RSAF training and operations and Search and Rescue, and what measures were taken up by the RSAF to deal with this development. 16. Mr Cyrille Tan asked the Minister for Defence, with the restrictions imposed on the usage of Malaysian airspace, what measures are being considered by the SAF to (i) work around the restrictions; and (ii) improve on their search-and-rescue operations. The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence): Sir, may I have permission to take Question Nos. 15 and 16 together?”
“Sir, let me take the 1997 general elections and using the percentage I mentioned earlier, about 31,000 out of the 765,300 electors did not vote in the 1997 elections. Among them were about 9,300 who were elderly infirm or those who were sick and unable to vote. About 4,340 of them were studying overseas; about 8,680 of them were holidaying abroad and about 8,680 were either working or living abroad, more or less permanently. So if the Member is talking about people who are working overseas or staying overseas permanently, the number is about 8,600.”
“5,052 spousal violence cases were reported from July 1996 to July 1998. Statistics on the number of spousal violence cases prior to July 1996 and the profile of the abusers are not available. MCD is currently spearheading the development of a family violence database system which will capture information on the profile of abusers. This is expected to be completed in early-2000. IMPORTATION OF VIAGRA 7. Mr Shriniwas Rai asked the Minister for Health whether the Government will study the potency of Viagra before allowing it to be imported to Singapore as it may have long-term health and social implications.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 5, after line 5, to insert - "(8) For the purpose of this section, "Government medical officer" includes a medical practitioner registered under the Medical Registration Act (Cap. 174) who is employed in any hospital or medical institution and who is designated by name or office by the Controller in writing for the purposes of this section.".". Sir, this amendment is proposed because persons who are required to undergo medical examination by the Controller of Immigration for an infectious disease has to be referred to the Communicable Disease Centre at the Tan Tock Seng Hospital, which is now a restructured hospital. Therefore, there is a need to broaden the definition of "Government medical officer" to include private medical practitioners in restructured hospitals. The new definition will provide the Controller with the flexibility to designate other private medical practitioners in the private hospitals if such a need ever arises in future to carry out any medical examination. Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“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. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 -”
“It makes our problem very difficult because for Chinese, Indians or Bangladeshis, it is very easy for them to blend in with the environment and for enforcement action, it is very difficult to look for them until we ask them to produce their pass or identity card. So we must continue with this very strict policy of making sure that only those who come here are genuine tourists, and they must have the money. If not, they should not come here as tourists. For those who want to come to work, they must apply for a permit. We should not impose visa on the basis of whether the country is friendly or not friendly, and we cannot compare whether an American citizen is more favoured than a PRC citizen. We treat all nationalities equally, but if a particular nationality has a tendency to overstay, then we must look at the visa rule and apply the rule. If Americans come here and overstay, then we will apply the visa rule on them. I see very little evidence of that now. So we do not need to reciprocate the American visa rule on Singaporeans. Immigration Department recently made some adjustments to the bond requirement of tour companies. For those tour companies which bring in tourists from PRC and they can look after them and make sure that they go home, we can be a bit more flexible, and that is where adjustments have been made to reduce the bond required for such tourists. But if they cannot look after their tourists who run away, then of course their bond value will go up. That is what we have done. I hope that these companies which bring in such tourists will continue to do their work and make sure that their tourists go home so that they can reduce their financial burden. Actually, it is just a bond from a bank. We do not require the money. Question put, and agreed to.”
“So when they cannot come through the normal way, they will come in by the illegal way, ie, by smuggling themselves into Singapore. But what is more startling is the number of illegal immigrants from PRC ever since we imposed the visa requirement. In 1996, the number of overstayers, ie, those who came to Singapore legally and overstayed was 2007, but the number of illegal immigrants was only 516. After we imposed the visa requirement, the number of PRC overstayers arrested dropped to 694, but the number of illegal immigrants of PRC origin arrested went up to 1,854. In other words, the figure has changed significantly. If they come in legally, they will overstay. When we imposed a visa requirement, they will smuggle themselves in. So if we do not have a visa requirement, there will be overstayers. Now we have, of course, to take enforcement action to look for them and eventually repatriate them when they are arrested. So I am not in favour of making it more liberal for tour companies to bring in foreigners, whether from PRC, India or any other country, who are likely to overstay in Singapore. We must continue with these visa rules to make sure that they do not overstay. Then we can take other actions to reduce the number of illegal immigrants. To complete the picture, just in the first seven months of this year, the number of PRC illegal immigrants arrested was 1,909 which is already more than that for the whole of last year, although the number of overstayers has gone down to 768. The more liberal we are in our visa rule, the more people will come in here and overstay.”
“But in 1996, we decided to impose visa on those who came from China. As a result, we saw the number of overstayers from China went down and the number of illegal immigrants from China went up. Before I go into the details of such overstayers and immigration offenders, I will just give Members the other figures which I was referring to earlier. In 1995, we had 11,732 immigration offenders. 6,587 or just slightly about half or 55% of them were overstayers. But the number of illegal immigrants had gone up to 5,001. In 1996, we had 14,260 immigration offenders. The number of overstayers was 8,553 and the number of illegal immigrants was 5,700. Then we decided to impose visa, as I said, on PRC visitors. The number of illegal immigrants subsequently went up to 7,599 in 1997, out of a total of 13,913 immigration offenders. That was all normal activity. In other words, police carried out the normal enforcement, etc. But since March this year, police stepped up their enforcement together with the Immigration and they patrolled our coast more strictly and they raided worksites, residences, haunts, etc. The number of immigration offenders arrested in the first seven months alone was already more than that for the whole of last year, 14,874. And among them, a great majority, 9,449 were illegal immigrants. Who made up most of these people? I will come to the details which I am talking about. On Indians, after we imposed the visa in 1994, it took a while to take effect and the number of overstayers increased somewhat, but not that large, from 1,342 in 1996 to about 1,452 in 1997. But the number of illegal immigrants coming from India has shot up from 387 in 1996 to 909 in 1997. In the first seven months of 1998, the number of illegal immigrants arrested shot up to 1,700.”
“We want to welcome tourists but at the same time we do not want these tourists to become overstayers. And how do we do that? It is to make sure that those whom we think or believe are likely to be potential overstayers, we must make it difficult for them to become overstayers. Therefore, for some time now, we have implemented visa requirements for those who come from India and subsequently for those who come from China and now for those who come from Bangladesh. We require them to furnish a bond and apply for a visa before they can come here as a visitor. If they come here to work, then of course their agents will bring them in and apply for work permits and if their permit is approved, they will come here to work. But if they just come here and claim to be a tourist and eventually overstay, then we must find ways to sieve them out. It is not our intention to impose stringent conditions on tour companies bringing in tourists. It is not our intention to dry up their business by requiring them to put up security bonds. But while we welcome tourists, while we want to promote such tour companies, we must also bear in mind that we should not allow some of these people who come here to overstay in Singapore. Let me just give Members some data to illustrate what I mean when we have to impose visa or security bonds. Let me start with 1994. Otherwise, it will go into history and it will take a long time. In 1994, among the total number of 9,846 immigration offenders, 2,686 or about 25% of them were illegal immigrants. 7,001 or the majority of them were overstayers. In 1994, we imposed visa on Indian tourists and subsequently we saw a slight decline in the number. No visa was imposed on those who came from China.”