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 37 of 64.
“Sir, I thank the Members for speaking up on this Bill. First, let me answer Mr Zulkifli's point about HIV carriers. This amendment is not intended to stop any HIV carrier from coming here as a tourist. If he is here as a tourist, a short-term visitor, he is not subjected to this Bill. This amendment on medical examination of people who may be HIV carriers only applies to those who work in Singapore or who apply to work in Singapore, and those people who are staying here for some time. So if they are here as short-term visitors, they are not affected. If they are here on long-term social visit pass, then they would be affected. For example, if they are here on a student pass, even though they may not be workers, they would be subjected to this amendment if they are here for a long period. Similarly, for those who are here on professional visit pass, they would also be subjected to this particular requirement. So let me assure the Member that this Bill is not to deter any tourist who may be an HIV carrier. Sir, let me now talk about another point which Mr Rai raised before I talk about the general point about visitors. On speedboats, yes, indeed, we have to have a lot of speedboats and this is what the Police Coast Guard is doing: upgrading its capability and resources and renewing its speedboats when they become due for renewal. And as a result, we are going to acquire a few more very fast boats. Recently, I sat in one and found it very good indeed. I think it would be adequate for the purpose of patrolling our shores to ensure that those who come on very high speed speedboats will easily be caught by us and there would be no way of getting away from it. On the more general point about tourists, this amendment is not intended to discourage tourists.”
“Conclusion Sir, ensuring that we properly manage the inflow, presence and outflow of a large pool of foreign visitors and workers in Singapore, be they legal or illegal, is one of the Ministry of Home Affairs' greatest challenges. In managing this foreign population, we need to strike a fine balance between our economic objectives and ensuring that we do not compromise the sense of safety and security of Singaporeans. Since the Immigration Act was last amended in 1995, our operating environment has changed significantly. The proposals that I have presented today are necessary to ensure that the Act remains relevant to our needs, and will help to make Singapore a safer and more secure home for all Singaporeans. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“30 am, for example, a speedboat carrying suspected illegal immigrants was pursued by a PCG patrol craft in the Johor Bahru Straits and the two vessels subsequently collided. The five persons on board the speedboat were seen jumping into the sea and swimming towards Tanjong Murai shore, which is next to Lim Chu Kang Road and the Murai Reservoir, before they escaped into the darkness. Although the speedboat was seized and towed back by PCG, it had to be treated as unclaimed property and could not be forfeited because no one was charged. Thirdly, clause 5 will amend section 8(1) of the Act to clarify the law relating to a prohibited immigrant by making it clear that a foreigner who is a member of any of the prohibited classes specified in subsection (3) is a prohibited immigrant within the meaning of the section. Such prohibited classes include persons with mental illness or infectious diseases, and those who are prostitutes, vagrants and beggars. In addition, the Controller can deem any other foreigner who in the opinion of the Controller is a member of any of the prohibited classes, to be a prohibited immigrant. Clause 8(b) seeks to amend section 8(3) to explicitly list anyone with the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome or infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus to be a prohibited immigrant and liable to be denied entry or repatriated. Clause 8 will amend section 38 to create a new subsection (2) to empower an immigration officer to exercise the powers of a Police officer under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68) in relation to investigating seizable offences. This is necessary to ensure that the immigration officers are given sufficient investigation powers to carry out their duties under the Act.”
“The amendment is necessary so that the Controller can have access to medical information, which will facilitate him in identifying and repatriating foreigners with infectious diseases who are in Singapore. The proposed access to medical information for the Controller will not be confined to infectious diseases alone. It will also apply to other medical conditions, such as mental illnesses, insofar as a foreigner may be a danger to society as a result of his medical condition. Secondly, section 49(1) of the Immigration Act currently only empowers the Controller of Immigration or any immigration officer authorised by him to seize vessels or vehicles below 76 tonnes used in the commission of any immigration offence. Clause 9 will repeal and re-enact section 49(1) of the Act to empower any Police officer authorised by a Deputy Commissioner of Police to perform the same function. This is aimed at enhancing Police's operational efficiency as the Police Coast Guard has been tasked to police our territorial waters and deal with illegal immigrants attempting to enter by sea. In practice, the decision to seize such a vessel is now handled by the Police and it is necessary for Police officers to be similarly empowered to authorise such seizures, thus avoiding any unnecessary delay in handling such cases. Clause 9 also amends section 49(1) to make it clear that the Court's power to forfeit a vessel or vehicle under the section may be invoked notwithstanding that no person has been charged. This latter amendment is necessary as Police had encountered cases where vessels or vehicles were seized but the passengers and operators evaded arrest and could not be charged. On 3rd March this year, at 2.”
“First, the Immigration Act currently only empowers the Controller of Immigration to require those seeking to enter Singapore and those applying for passes and permits to submit to medical examinations as a condition for issuing the pass or permit. However, the Controller of Immigration is not empowered to require those who are already holding valid passes and permits to undergo medical examination. According to the Ministry of Health's statistics, since 1993, more than 2,000 foreigners living and working in Singapore have been found to be HIV-positive. Their illnesses were detected when they fell ill or when they applied to purchase insurance policies or when they applied to renew their passes and permits. Currently, only new PR and work permit applicants, and work permit holders applying to renew their work permits are required to undergo the medical screening before their applications are approved. From early next year, employment pass and other long-term immigration pass holders will be required to undergo medical examination before these passes are issued to them. The extension of the medical screening to these groups of foreigners will help to keep out foreigners who are a potential threat to our public health. More details will be announced later. Clause 7 of the Bill will amend section 29 of the Act to empower the Controller of Immigration to require holders of entry permits and passes to undergo medical examination at any time, and for the medical records to be disclosed to the Controller of Immigration. Those holders of entry permits and passes who refuse to undergo such medical examination can be fined a maximum of $2,000 and imprisoned up to six months, and have their passes revoked.”
“It will contain enhanced security features, including the fingerprint of the foreign worker, and an expiry date that will coincide with the expiry of the work permit and visit pass. Not only will this new identification card reduce the likelihood of forgery, fingerprint records will also allow our enforcement agencies to more conclusively identify the card-holder. The proposed identification card will be implemented in phases, commencing from the end of this year. More details will be released in due course. Clause 10 of the Bill amends section 55(1) of the Immigration Act to provide for the Minister to make new regulations pertaining to the recording, storage and retrieval of the fingerprints, including thumbprints, for the proposed identification card for the foreign workers. These regulations would also empower law enforcement agencies when conducting raids to demand finger and thumb prints from persons holding these new identity cards for verification purposes. Since the visit pass for work permit holders would no longer be endorsed in the passport, clause 11(e) will amend section 57 of the Act to require an employer or harbourer of an immigration offender to prove that he had exercised due diligence by checking the original pass (which will now be incorporated into the identification card for work permit holders) and ascertaining that the holder of the passport is the person named in the pass or permit, before he could rely on the holder's possession of the visit pass as a legal defence that he did not knowingly employ or harbour an immigration offender. Other Amendments Sir, this Amendment Bill also proposes other amendments to facilitate the enforcement actions of Immigration and Police officers.”
“On the other hand, once the presumption clause is inserted in the law, the burden of proof would then fall on the accused persons to produce evidence to satisfy the Court that it is more probable than not that they were not attempting to enter Singapore illegally. Proposed Identification Card for Foreign Workers Let me now turn to the amendments which are necessary for the implementation of the proposed identification card for foreign workers. Currently, a work permit holder is issued a Work Permit, with the immigration Disembarkation/Embarkation pass incorporated on the reverse side to show that he had entered Singapore through legal channels. In addition, a Visit Pass showing the permitted duration of stay granted by the Controller of Immigration is endorsed in the passport. To prevent the worker from absconding, it is common practice for the employers to hold on to the worker's passport and work permit card, leaving the worker with only a photocopy of his work permit card. However, this practice makes it difficult for enforcement agencies to identify whether a foreigner is a legitimate worker or an illegal immigrant. Photocopies are usually of poor quality, and they can be easily forged. The current work permit card also does not capture the fingerprints of the holder, thus making it difficult for enforcement agencies to conclusively identify that the person carrying the work permit card is actually the person identified in the card. In addition, it does not have adequate security features to prevent forgery. To address these shortcomings, my Ministry and the Manpower Ministry will be jointly implementing a new identification card for foreign workers, which will combine the current work permit card, the Disembarkation/Embarkation card and the visit pass.”
“inadequate funds or resources for a person's basic upkeep for a week's stay in Singapore; or (c) he has taken precautions to conceal his identity or presence from our Police or Immigration officers, eg. by lying low in the boats or by travelling at night without a light. Clause 4(b) of the Bill amends section 6 of the Act to insert subsections (4) and (5) to provide for this presumption clause. The presumption will assist the prosecution by putting the onus on the accused to satisfy the Court that it is more probable than not that he was not attempting to enter Singapore, which is a heavier burden than merely raising a reasonable doubt that he was attempting to enter Singapore. Let me illustrate how the presumption clause will be used with an example. On 24th February this year at 2.30 in the morning, the Police Coast Guard (PCG) detected a motorised sampan heading from Batam towards Singapore. PCG intercepted the sampan at the sea off Changi after a short chase. It found 10 passengers and two boat operators in the sampan. They carried with them small amounts of cash in rupiah and ringgit, and did not possess any valid travel documents. They also tried to lie low to escape detection by PCG. The boat operators and the passengers were successfully prosecuted in this case. But the onus was on the prosecution to adduce the necessary evidence to prove a prima facie case to the court that these accused persons had attempted to enter Singapore illegally. This was despite it being patently clear what the intentions of the boat operators and their passengers were.”
“Rebuttable Presumption for Attempted Illegal Entry Let me now turn to the proposed introduction of a presumption clause for attempted illegal entry under section 6 of the Immigration Act. Illegal immigrants arriving by sea and who are caught in our territorial waters before they disembark from their vessels are not considered to have "entered" Singapore within the meaning of the current provisions in the Act. Although they can be charged with attempted illegal entry, there is a problem of proof of intent as the illegal immigrant, when caught, usually claims that he has no intention to enter Singapore. Added to this is the problem created by the right of transit under international law. These illegal immigrants often claim that they are exercising their right of transit through Singapore waters as a legal defence. Short of a confession, there is often no way to rebut their claim. By relying on such a defence, the illegal immigrants can create a reasonable doubt as to whether they had intended to enter Singapore illegally. Such evidential difficulties have made it difficult for the Police to prove such cases beyond a reasonable doubt as required by law and to successfully prosecute some of these illegal immigrants in the past. To deal more effectively with similar cases, my Ministry proposes to introduce a presumption clause in the Act so that any foreigner fitting the profile of an illegal immigrant found in our port waters will be presumed to be attempting to enter Singapore illegally if - (a) he does not carry any valid travel document; or (b) he has no visible means of subsistence, eg.”
“To ensure that these smugglers do not escape the corporal punishment meted out to those convicted of trafficking in illegal immigrants, we propose that the penalty for abetment of illegal entry be amended to include mandatory caning. Clauses 11(b) and (d) of the Bill amend section 57(1) of the Act to provide that abettors of illegal entry under section 6 will be punished with a mandatory minimum of three strokes of the cane, in addition to the existing penalty of between six months and two years' jail. (iii) Employment of immigration offenders Employers of immigration offenders should also be severely dealt with. This is because if employers do not offer them jobs, illegal immigrants will not be attracted to come to Singapore. Currently, employers of more than five immigration offenders can be sentenced to between six months and two years' jail, fined not exceeding $6,000 and caned. Clause 11(c) of the Bill amends section 57(1B) of the Act to increase the maximum fine for employers of more than five immigration offenders who cannot be caned because they are females or more than 50 years old from $6,000 to $10,000. Corporate bodies which employ immigration offenders are fined between $50,000 and $100,000 in lieu of mandatory jail sentences or caning on conviction. In addition, an officer of the company who approves the employment is personally liable to be prosecuted for the offence of employing immigration offenders. He is liable, on conviction, to the same penalties for employing immigration offenders. Clause 11(f) amends section 57(2A) to increase the default fines in lieu of mandatory jail or caning for corporate bodies convicted of employing immigration offenders to between $100,000 and $200,000 to maintain the deterrent effect.”
“This is because it is, in practice, difficult to obtain evidence showing that the traffickers have engaged in the business of smuggling illegal immigrants. As abettors, they are liable to be jailed between six months and two years and fined up to $6,000, but do not receive corporal punishment. Let me relate an actual example to illustrate the point I am making. On 7th May 1998 at 3.30 am, Police Coast Guard intercepted a fast-moving sampan, fitted with a 200 hp outboard engine, at sea off Changi while it was proceeding from Batam towards Pulau Tekong. There were two boat operators and three passengers in the sampan. None of them possessed valid travel documents and they were all arrested. The two boat operators were charged as abettors, and sentenced to seven months' imprisonment each. The three passengers were charged for attempting to enter Singapore illegally, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment each. The two boat operators could not be charged as traffickers because we did not have adequate proof that they were engaged in the business of conveying illegal immigrants to Singapore. Under our proposal to equate the penalty for attempted illegal entry to the penalty for illegal entry, caning for attempted illegal entry will become mandatory for the passengers. But it is absurd that the passengers are caned under the proposed amendments while those who facilitated their illegal entry, ie, the boat operators, are not. It is more effective to tackle the problem at source, and deter the conveyance of illegal immigrants to Singapore altogether. Besides, these so-called "abettors" are as guilty in bringing in illegal immigrants as those convicted as smugglers. Therefore, deterrent penalties have to be imposed.”
“The Immigration Act has to be amended to give effect to these enhanced penalties. Enhanced Penalties (i) Attempted illegal entry and departure Currently, attempted illegal entry and departure attract penalties which are less severe than those for actual illegal entry and departure. While the penalty for illegal entry is a maximum six months' jail and mandatory caning of a minimum three strokes, the penalty for the attempted illegal entry offence is imprisonment of between three months and two years and a fine of $4,000, but no caning. For illegal departure, the penalty is a maximum $2,000 fine and six months' jail, while the penalty for attempted illegal departure is a maximum $2,000 fine and three months' jail. My Ministry proposes to equate the penalties for attempted illegal entry or departure to the penalties for illegal entry or departure respectively because there is no reason to treat an unsuccessful act of illegal entry or departure more leniently than a successful one. Clauses 3 and 4(a) of the Bill will amend sections 5 and 6 to make attempted illegal entry and attempted illegal departure punishable with the same penalties as illegal entry and illegal departure. (ii) Abetment of illegal entry Smugglers of illegal immigrants bring the illegal immigration problem to Singapore and therefore have to be dealt with severely. Currently, those convicted of engaging in the business of conveying prohibited immigrants into Singapore can be jailed between two and five years and caned a mandatory minimum of three strokes. Although this penalty is adequately severe, in reality, many traffickers, boatmen and runners caught smuggling illegal immigrants escape punishment under this section. Instead, they are charged with abetment of illegal entry.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Illegal Immigrant Problem Sir, I shall first touch on the illegal immigrant problem and the proposed enhancement of penalties for some of the existing immigration offences. Singapore is a small country with limited resources. The presence of illegal immigrants will pose a serious social and security problem, and compromise the safety and security of Singaporeans. We have therefore taken, and will continue to take, a tough stand against all immigration offenders - be they illegal immigrants, their smugglers, overstayers, or the harbourers and employers of such people - especially given the current regional economic situation. Since early this year, the Police Coast Guard (PCG) has stepped up patrols in our waters to deter and arrest illegal immigrants. The Police and Singapore Immigration and Registration (SIR) have also raided hideouts and haunts in Singapore to flush out immigration offenders. Joint raids were also conducted with the Ministry of Manpower in the service and manufacturing sectors, for example, at food courts, hawker centres and factories. These raids have resulted in the arrests of 9,449 illegal immigrants and 5,425 overstayers in the first seven months of 1998 alone, compared to 7,599 illegal immigrants and 6,314 overstayers for the whole of 1997. These enforcement measures must be backed up by tough laws and strict penalties for those who have committed offences. My Ministry has undertaken a comprehensive review of the penalties for the various types of immigration offences. While we found existing penalties to be generally adequate, the penalties for some offences need to be enhanced to enable us to effectively deal with the illegal immigrant problem.”
“For the period 1st June, 1997 to 30th June, 1998 the Registrar of Societies approved 221 applications. Of these 167 (75%) were approved within 3 months and another 46 (21%) within 4 to 6 months. Eight (4%) applications took more than 6 months to complete due to the need to seek more information and clarifications during the processing. During the same period from 1st June, 1997 to 30th June, 1998, 5 (2%) applications were rejected because the Registrar was satisfied that the proposed societies were likely to be used for unlawful purposes or that it would be contrary to the national interest for the societies to be registered. Currently, there is one application which is outstanding for more than 6 months. Its processing will be completed shortly.”
“E-mail is data as defined under the Computer Misuse Act. So do not think that by just sending e-mail, therefore, you are not caught by the Act. You are, if you actually use e-mail and bomb other people's computer. Let me come back to Mr Chuang's concern about computer users or people who may be caught by the Act without knowing that they have actually offended the laws of the CMA and therefore suggesting that we need to have more publicity, more campaigns, seminars or whatever it is to tell people about the new provisions. As I said, all these computer buffs are quite well read people and, of course, we will try to post as much of this as possible on the Internet and other media, so that the people will get to know of it. And through the publicity in the media, through cases brought up in court, I think people are quite well aware of the offences committed using the computer. We do not have to do a big play of it each time we have a case. But I think those who are knowledgeable - I assume those who use the computer are knowledgeable - will be able to understand the implications of their misdeeds. And if that is still not enough, then perhaps more seminars can be conducted and maybe CASE can also help in spreading this knowledge among the consumers. 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. CONTROL OF VECTORS AND PESTICIDES BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.52 pm”
“If spaming leads to obstruction and impedes the person's use of a computer, in other words, keep loading and loading the person with all kinds of junk and as a result his computer crashes, then we may have a problem. But as I said, the idea here is not to discourage people who want to advertise their wares or whatever it is they want to sell.”
“I am glad that Prof. Chin accepts the point that there is enough warning in the protected computer. The question is whether the person needs to know that it is a protected computer or not. I have left it to the AG's Chambers to advise me on this and, as I said, no law is static. As we gain experience, we get more experience, more cases, more examples, new technology, then all kinds of changes will come about. Eventually, we will find a way to fine-tune and improve the laws that we have. That is how we conduct our business here. Coming back to Dr Toh's worry about spaming. As he has described, spaming is like when people send you junk mail in the mail box but it is done through the computer. Sometimes it is really difficult for us to refuse junk mail other than throwing it into the rubbish bin. But in the case of the computer, if people send you junk mail, then there is very little you can do about it. As Dr Toh said, we really do not want to discourage people who want to advertise their products. But if the computer owner or user feels that he has got so much junk mail, maybe he can get in touch with the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or the service providers to make sure that they screen off such junk mail from his mail. The intention is not really to discourage people who want to advertise, and there are other avenues of advertising.”
“So I think there will be enough signposts, warnings and, at the same time, if you still want to enter, you say, "Yes, I want to come in and see", then you are actually committing an offence. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Mr Speaker, may I clarify this point with the Minister?”
“The password owner can also be charged with abetting, under section 7, the unauthorised access by the recipient, and be punished in the same manner, that is, he is subjected to the enhanced penalty. It is thus not necessary to apply section 6C to section 6B per se but to the commission of the subsequent offences which affect the protected computer. As for section 7, that is the section relating to abetment and hence there is no need to incorporate it inside the provisions of section 6C. However, if a person abets another person in committing an offence punished under section 6C, then the abettor would be liable for the same enhanced penalty as the principal offender. So the provision of section 6C, as it is currently drafted, is adequate. Let me come back to Prof. Chin again on the question of people getting into the protected computers that they may not know that it is a protected computer and therefore may be punished. I think all these cybernauts are rather clever people. They know what they do and as they enter into a protected computer, I am told, there will be adequate electronic signposts and other warnings put up stipulating that unauthorised access to the computer or the program or data is an offence and, therefore, it will attract enhanced penalty. So warnings will be given to the would-be culprits to try to trespass protected computer systems. The offender would have sufficient warning that he is entering into a protected computer as he would have to acknowledge that he has read the warning, for example, by clicking on a link or a button with a title, "I accept or comply" and enter before he could proceed. The intent of a person who accesses a protected computer without authority would then be taken into account when considering prosecution.”
“Section 6C aims primarily at offences which affect the integrity of protected computers and cause adverse consequences to its operation. That is why the principal sections pertaining to hacking and other offences which could create adverse impact on protected computers are covered in sections 3, 5, 6 and 6A. The coverage does not extend to sections 4, 6B or 7. If authorised users of protected computers commit offences of unauthorised modification under sections 5, 6 and 6A, then they are also liable under section 6C. There is therefore no need to capture section 4 under section 6C. Section 4 is to address the offences where authorised users use the computers to commit a crime and not to damage the computer per se. Under section 4, if an offender has authorised access and accesses a protected computer to commit an offence under sections 5, 6 or 6A, then he would have committed an offence under section 6C and enhanced penalties would then apply. If, however, the person accesses it to commit a criminal offence without affecting the integrity of the protected computer, then the punishment under section 4 will apply. If the offender commits an offence under section 4 and he has unauthorised access to a protected computer in the course of committing the offence, then he would still be liable for enhanced penalty because he has unauthorised access to the protected computer in committing the offence under section 3. As for section 6B, if an offender discloses the password or the recipient uses it to enter a protected computer, the recipient can be charged under section 3 to which section 6C applies with enhanced penalty.”
“The Police may require any person in possession of decryption information to grant him access to such decryption information necessary to decrypt the data required for purposes of investigation. Of course, the Police just cannot say, "Open up and show me." It will have to get the Public Prosecutor's consent before it can actually act. Mr Chuang talks about the definition of "damage". We think that this definition, as we have described it now, is a much more sophisticated manner to define damage so that enhanced penalties for damage can apply to serious situations which, nevertheless, would not fall within the definition of "protected computers". As more aspects of our lives are being controlled by computers, we will have to find a way of ensuring that we do not suffer as a result of it. So we have to provide for protection. Hackers can use a computer to hack into the computer system of a chemical factory, for example, to discharge toxic chemicals into the environment or to change hospital records or diagnosis, etc, as I have just explained. Therefore, we have to define section 2 and widen it to include, apart from financial loss, impairment to computers that will potentially modify or impair the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment or care of one or more persons; or causes or threatens physical injury or death to any person; or threatens public health or public safety. In that sense, we have widened it. So it does explain how damage is to be defined in the Bill. I now come to this so-called anomaly, mentioned by Dr Toh See Kiat, in section 6C on the enhanced penalties which cover some offences but omit others, such as those in sections 3, 5, 6 and 6A but not that of sections 4, 7 and the new section 6B.”
“If Ping commands are repeatedly sent to the server and the server ends up processing and responding to the command, resulting in it not being able to perform other tasks, then such Ping of Death attacks may actually cause the computer to crash. Teardrop attacks are packets of useless data repeatedly sent to the computer and the computer has to process the data. It is, however, unable to interpret such data and this again may cause the computer to hang. So there are many examples of how one can obstruct a computer, or the use of a computer, or impedes the use of a computer, apart from just e-mail bombing. How do we prove that an offence has taken place, ie, the system has crashed or hanged due to such an offence? The owner or the user will have to show that he indeed could not use his computer at all. If the effect of the offence was to impair the computer's effectiveness, for example, in slowing down the response to legitimate activities, then there are network management tools which could show that, technically, the computer's response has indeed been slowed down. So this can actually be easily checked. Prof. Chin also said that the original section 14 in addressing Police powers is enough. We do not think it is enough, in particular, the Police power to access encrypted data. If a person refuses to cooperate or just play dumb and refuses to tell you how to access because he did not want to reveal his password to open up the computer, then Police investigation will be impeded. Section 14 also makes it an offence if a person obstructs the lawful exercise of power or fails to comply with the request to provide reasonable technical and other assistance to the Police.”
“If he is authorised to use the computer but uses it with intent to commit a crime, as specified in section 4, then he may be charged under this Bill. But if he is charged under this Bill, based on the same facts, he cannot be charged under another Act. Prof. Chin says that section 6A on impairing the usefulness or effectiveness of data stored in a computer seems to be a bit open-ended and imprecise. He asked, apart from e-mail, what else are we actually thinking about and he was not sure whether it is workable. I gave e-mail bombing as an example of what is meant by impeding access or use. Under section 6A(1)(b), it says that if a person "impedes or prevents access to, or impairs the usefulness or effectiveness of, any program or data stored in a computer .". That is how it is worded under section 6A(1)(b). An example of this is a person sending commands to a computer server which would cause it to perform functions which could slow down the programs or cause it to miscompute certain things without actually gaining unauthorised access or making any unauthorised modifications. This can be done by exploiting the bugs in the system or the weaknesses in the software. Repeated requests may be sent which will then overwhelm the computer and slow it down and impair the usefulness, for example, by making it to miscompute. Examples of such offences are, in the lingo of the people who know, Ping of Death and Teardrop. Maybe I should say what are Ping of Death and Teardrop attacks. Ping commands are legitimate commands sent to check whether a server is in existence or responsive before engaging it.”
“It will, if he were to use it to commit a crime. That is what the purpose of this new section 4 is all about. So it is very clear that we can catch the person under this amendment. Some of my colleagues asked why do we not catch them under the other laws because the primary act is that of theft, extortion, etc, and we could use the other laws to punish them. Yes, of course, we can also do that. But we feel that if a person has actually abused his authority in using the computer, we should try to use this legislation and update it so as to also catch him under it. But it does not mean that the person can be charged twice for the same offence based on the same facts. So if we were to charge a person for extortion, an example used by Prof. Chin, when he uses his computer instead of his typewriter to print the extortion letter, then of course, we will not charge him under the Penal Code. He will be charged under this particular Bill. Section 4(2) actually narrows the offences under which we can charge a person for committing a crime. It is quite clear that it is only for certain categories of offences and not all types of offences involving the use of computers. In that sense, we have more or less narrowed the ground for which a person can be charged using a computer with intent to commit an offence, as specified in section 4. I have given the example of the Golden Village Cinemas case. There are other similar cases which the police in the past have not been able to charge a person under the CMA because there was no such provision or the provision itself was not clear. Sir, let me say this again. If a person uses his computer for a lawful purpose, he does not have to worry that he will be charged under section 4.”
“Sir, I thank the Members for speaking on this Bill. Indeed this Bill is necessary and we are updating it to provide for a changed situation from the time of the first Computer Misuse Act some years ago. If you just look at the number of Internet users today compared to, say, January or February 1995, just the number of Internet users, without counting the access they can have through their employers, has increased 10 times, easily from 25,000 to about 270,000 by January this year. And there is an equally large number of those who have access to Internet using their own employers' computers. Sir, we can see that the situation envisaged in 1993-94 when we first had the CMA was something that we do not see it today. There is an exponential increase in the number of computers, the usage of computers and the number of users of computers. Therefore, we need to update the Act. By updating the Act, we are not trying to put obstacles in people's path in their use of computers by making them unauthorised users just because they have been authorised to do something but, if they were to use it for some unauthorised purposes, they will be acting against the law. Let me assure Members that anybody who uses the computer with authority for a lawful purpose will not be caught under this Bill. So have no fear if you are using it for a proper and lawful purpose, with no intent to commit a crime. You do not have to worry that even by removing the word "unauthorised", you will be caught by this new section 4. I have explained earlier on why we have this new section 4. The idea of section 4, as amended, is to remove the uncertainty that a person, who is originally authorised to access the computer, may now find himself guilty of an offence if he were to use it to commit a crime.”
“It seems to be too early to suggest that this encrypted information element is not within the existing law. My submission is that the existing provision is more than enough for this purpose. Sir, I hope that enough has been said to persuade the Minister and Members of this House that it may be expedient to reconsider whether some of the amendments are actually necessary or desirable. I hope that there will be a further opportunity to review the desirability of enacting some of these provisions into law, bearing in mind that the Computer Misuse Act, as it is appropriately named, is to control computer misuse, ie, unauthorised access to computers.”
“Such a presumption would obviously not operate if, for instance, a person does not understand the language of the warning, or the computer is so fast that the warning simply flashes through too quickly for the reader to appreciate. To take an extreme example. A foreigner gaining access to a protected computer, not understanding English or Chinese, may on this basis have more scope to avoid enhanced penalties than a local in the same situation. One would have thought that in such cases, it would be better to stipulate that once the warning is given, the accused will be liable to the enhanced punishment. His understanding or knowledge of the warning or lack of it may be a factor to be taken into account in sentencing, and it should not be, in other words, an element deciding whether a computer is protected or not. I turn finally to section 14 - the proposed amendments to police powers. This includes specifically the requirement that the police are to be given assistance in the case where the information is encrypted. Once again, while I agree that the police should be provided with powers to require information from suspects in their investigation, I do not think that a change to the existing provision is necessary. Sir, the original provision does not provide specifically for the situation of encrypted information. But the language of the original section is wide enough to cover such situations. Under the existing section, the police can require the suspect to "provide him with such reasonable assistance as he may require." This is wide enough for the police to require a suspect to give assistance with regard to encrypted information and the like. There has not been any case concerning this subject.”
“Again, it is difficult to imagine what the mischief the section is intended to cover. Impeding and impairing the usefulness or effectiveness of a program is really a matter of degree. Once you turn on a computer and access a program, you are really in a way using the program, taking up the memory of the computer and, therefore, maybe impairing the effectiveness of other programs. Is it intended that this section be applied, for instance, only to aggressive businessmen who e-mail bomb potential customers with their advertisements? Or is there some more serious problem that this section is intended to cover? It is not very clear in the section itself as to what the problem is. I turn to new section 6C which contains a new provision prescribing enhanced punishment for offences involving protected computers. Such computers are determined according to the knowledge of the person alleged to have committed the offence. Does he know or ought reasonably to have known that the computer is one that is used for certain specific purposes, such as the security, defence or international relations of Singapore? Aside from these purposes, the section also includes computers dealing with other purposes such as the protection of informers, banking and financial services, communications and so on. While I agree with the purpose of the section, it is difficult to see why the nature of a protected computer should depend on the state of knowledge of the accused. For example, it is provided in subsection (3) of section 6C that the requisite knowledge shall be presumed if there was an electronic warning drawing attention to the section.”
“It is likely that the proponents for this provision may argue that many crimes, as the Minister has pointed out, are committed by employees using their employers' computers, ie, computer users committing crimes through proper use of their computers, and that this is the mischief that the amendment is supposed to control. I have to say that I remain unconvinced about the need to cover this situation for two reasons. First, the employee will already be charged with the principal offence, be it cheating, falsification of accounts, fraud, criminal breach of trust or what have you. Second, it remains open for the public prosecutor to argue that if an employee uses a computer for a purpose that is not within the scope of his employment, that should be treated as unauthorised access and, therefore, within the law as it now stands. This issue remains to be decided by case law, and it is much better to allow such a development to take place rather than to amend the law as suggested. I strongly urge Members and the Minister to reconsider whether it is necessary to amend section 4. I turn to section 6A. This is a new section referring to "unauthorised obstructioin of use of computer". The language of the section appears to be unduly open-ended and wide. I refer in particular to the proposed section 6A(1)(b) where it states, and I quote: `Any person who knowingly and without authority or lawful excuse - (b) impedes or prevents access to, or impairs the usefulness or effectiveness of, any program or data stored in a computer, shall be guilty of an offence .' The phrase "impairs the usefulness or effectiveness of any program or data" is really very open-ended and imprecise, particularly in relation to computer usage.”
“If he uses his computer at his place of work to print out such a note, being a high-tech criminal, he can be charged not only for extortion but he will in addition be liable to a charge of computer misuse under the proposed section 4. Sir, I have difficulty understanding why this should be the case. Under the original provision, the man would be liable for an additional charge under the Computer Misuse Act only if he uses the computer without authority. That is the mischief that the Computer Misuse Act was directed at. What is the mischief that this new section is intended to overcome? The man is already liable to be charged for what I should call the principal offence. Why is it necessary to charge him for another computer related offence? Does it not amount to punishing people for using a computer in addition to whatever other crime he has committed? If so, how do we distinguish such a case from one that makes use of other instruments such as a pen or an old typewriter in the commission of a crime? In the illustration I have given, can one really distinguish between using a computer from one of using the pen or the typewriter? The main question is: is it necessary or desirable to introduce a provision that criminalises what is otherwise legitimate behaviour, ie, using a computer with authority? The deletion of the words "without authority" from section 4 is, in my view, unjustified. I would strongly urge that these words be retained. The amendment is unnecessary, and not defensible.”
“With the Bill, banks, commercial institutions, foreign investors and businesses can rest assured that Singapore would be a good and safe place where E-commerce can flourish. Singaporeans can also rest assured that the law provides adequate coverage for the safe operation of essential computer systems in Singapore. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in general support of this Bill. I also support the enhanced penalties for the offences as outlined in the very comprehensive speech by the Minister. However, there are certain proposed amendments that I think merit reconsideration. The Computer Misuse Act was enacted to criminalise any misuse of computers. Its original targets were hackers who seek unauthorised access to computers and having gained such access, either damage the computer systems or steal data from them. The behaviour this Act was intended to control is unauthorised access. Today, we are considering a curious amendment to section 4 that would change the general approach for controlling unauthorised access. We are actually going to criminalise authorised access to a computer when the authorised user uses it to commit another specific crime. In other words, the original intent of the Computer Misuse Act to punish unauthorised access is going to be changed. Let me use an illustration to highlight these proposed changes. If a man either orally or write out a note extorting money from his neighbour, he is, of course, liable to be charged for extortion. If he uses an old typewriter to type out the same note, he can still be charged for extortion.”
“The penalty is a fine of up to $10,000 or up to 3 years imprisonment or both. There are similar sections like that in the Penal Code, eg, section 179 - refusing to answer a public servant authorised to question -which carries a penalty of imprisonment which may extend to 6 months or fine which may extend to $1000 or both, or section 186 - obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions - which carries a penalty of imprisonment which may extend to 3 months or fine which may extend to $500 or both. Sir, the existing provision in section 14 will also need to be widened to allow Police to gain access to encrypted data for the purpose of investigation. Clause 9 of the Bill also proposes to amend section 14 to widen the provisions to allow lawful access to data and encrypted material in the course of investigations of offences under the Act, or other offences disclosed in the course of such investigations. As a safeguard, such powers of access can only be exercised with the consent of the Public Prosecutor. Without the consent of the Public Prosecutor, the Police will not be able to obtain access to encrypted data or material. In practice, an arrangement will be put in place for the Police to secure the consent of the AG's Chambers without compromising operational efficiency. Conclusion In conclusion, Sir, this Bill is intended to send a strong signal that computer crimes will be treated and dealt with seriously in Singapore. As Singapore positions itself to be an intelligent island and a global centre for E-commerce, the legislative framework must keep pace with the developments to ensure the integrity of our computer systems against would-be cyber criminals and hackers.”
“To deter such acts, clause 7 will introduce a new section 6A to make it an offence for the unauthorised obstruction of use of a computer. The proposed penalty is a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to 3 years or both for a first offender, and a fine of up to $20,000 or imprisonment of up to 5 years or both for repeat offenders. If damage is caused, then the offender would face an enhanced penalty of up to $50,000 fine or 7 years imprisonment or both. Unauthorised Disclosure of Passwords or Access Codes Clause 7 will also introduce a new section 6B to make it an offence for unauthorised disclosure of passwords or other access codes by any person if he does so for any wrongful gain or for unlawful purpose or to cause wrongful loss. It is possible for a system administrator to sell passwords to unauthorised users to enable free access and usage. Passwords and other access codes are also used to enhance computer security and such acts would compromise security. The proposed penalties for such offences are similar to the penalties applicable to interference or obstruction of lawful use of computer. Necessary Powers for Enforcement Agencies The Bill also amends the CMA to provide the Police with the additional powers of investigations. In the course of investigation, Police may require persons to provide necessary assistance. For example, the Police may require persons who are in charge of or involved in the operation of computers under investigation to help to retrieve data from those computers. Under the current Act, it is not an offence if a person, whose assistance the Police requires, refuses to do so. Clause 9 of the Bill proposes to make it an offence if a person refuses to provide assistance or obstructs the Police in the course of investigation.”
“The staff who had authority to access the cinema cash card top up computer system used it to top up the cash value of unused cards for subsequent sale and covered their tracks by altering computer records. Although this offence was perpetrated through the use of a computer, the offenders were prosecuted under the Penal Code for criminal breach of trust which carried a punishment of fine or up to 7 years imprisonment, instead of a fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment of up to 10 years if they were to be prosecuted under the amended provisions of the CMA. To clarify this uncertainty, clause 4 of the Bill will amend section 4 to make it an offence for anyone to access a computer to commit a crime, regardless of whether access has been authorised. The punishment is retained at a fine of $50,000 or imprisonment not more than 10 years or both, as it is already sufficiently severe. Acts of Interference or Obstruction of Lawful Use of a Computer Mr Speaker, there is currently no law against acts of interference or obstruction of lawful use of a computer or impairment of the usefulness of a computer. An example of such an act is E-mail bombing where enormous amounts of E-mail are sent to a victim. When the victim checks his mailbox for mail, he may find hundreds of them each time. The process of downloading the mail would take a long time. As the subscriber is entitled to a certain amount of memory for E-mail, the victim's mailbox may crash. Currently, Police could not take further action on such cases as there is no law against such act. Victims have to seek help from other organisations such as the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in order to seek civil recourse.”
“Economic loss such as business opportunities forgone due to the downtime of the computer could be considered if the prosecution could make out a case that the loss was attributable to the damage caused to the computer system); (b) modifies or impairs, or potentially modifies or impairs, the medical diagnosis or treatment of persons. (For example, this could involve hacking into a medical record database to change or falsify the diagnosis on medical records, resulting in the wrong treatment being administered); (c) causes or threatens physical injury or death. (This could include hacking or threatening to hack into a pharmaceutical plant to change the composition of the chemicals used in the manufacturing of certain drugs); or (d) threatens public health or safety. (This could involve hacking into the public utilities systems). Addressing New Offences Accessing computer with or without authorisation Mr Speaker, Sir, under section 4 of the current CMA, it is an offence for a person to access a computer without authority in order to commit a crime. However, it is uncertain whether authorised users of a computer who abuse their authority to access computers to commit an offence are currently liable under the CMA. An example is the recent case involving Golden Village Cinemas. In December 1996, the management of Golden Village Cinemas reported a case of fraud involving usage of their Smart Cards. Four accused persons were eventually arrested in February 1997 in connection with the case. Investigations revealed that they had exploited the weakness of Golden Village Cinema computer and Smart Card system for monetary gains.”
“Let me cite a case to illustrate the damage that could be caused by such an illegal act. In 1996, in a case involving section 5(2), a systems administrator who was unhappy with the management of his company, inserted a Trojan horse programme into the computer system. This programme would replace the original system files with damaged files while backing-up of the system was done. He also timed the process to occur when he was away on holiday. As a result of this, the company's system crashed and the entire production line came to a standstill. After his dismissal, he called a production operator and instructed her to access the system on the pretext that he wanted to erase his personal files. The production operator followed his instruction and a set of system files was deleted. The system thus crashed for a second time. The accused eventually was charged for two counts under section 5(2), but was only sentenced to a maximum fine of $20,000, although the company's computer system and production were badly affected. Definition of Damage Mr Speaker Sir, there is also a need to recognise that the impact of computer crime goes beyond just financial terms. It is necessary to widen the definition of "damage" to cover damages beyond financial loss. Clause 2 of the Bill therefore proposes to widen the definition of "damage" to include any impairment to a computer or the integrity of data or program that: (a) causes loss aggregating at least $10,000 in value. (This is the estimated cost of restoring or repairing the damaged computer system.”
“As repeat offenders under section 3(1) of the CMA should be dealt with more severely, they would also face a more severe penalty of a fine of up to $10,000 or three years imprisonment or both. The penalties under section 5(1) (unauthorised modification) and section 6(1) (unauthorised use or interception) will also be increased to address increases in such offences. In 1997, there were about 25 such cases. In the first five months of this year, there were already 23 cases reported. Examples of offences under section 6(1) are cloning of mobile phones/pagers or when a person uses someone else's account and password to obtain free Internet usage. Recently, two persons were charged in court for using illegally obtained Internet accounts not belonging to them to gain access into the Internet. The accused persons deceived the victim into revealing to them her password. The amendment proposes to increase the penalties considering the consequences and the losses suffered by the victim. Clauses 5(1) and 6(1) propose to raise the penalties for first time offenders from the current fine of up to $2,000 or up to two years imprisonment or both, to a fine of up to $10,000 or up to three years imprisonment or both. Repeat offenders would face a fine of up to $20,000 or up to 5 years imprisonment or both. Clauses 3, 5 and 6 will also increase the penalties for offences under sections 3(2), 5(2) and 6(2) where damage is caused, to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 7 years or both. The penalties for these offences, where damage is caused, can be compared with the more serious property offences in the Penal Code such as criminal breach of trust where the penalties could extend to 7 years imprisonment.”
“Where the offence causes a loss of above $10,000, the punishment is a fine of up to $20,000 or imprisonment of up to five years or both. To enhance the deterrent effect of the law as well as ensure that repeat offenders are treated more severely than first offenders, clauses 3, 5 and 6 of the Bill propose to enhance the penalties, and to differentiate the penalties for first and repeat offenders. Clauses 3, 5 and 6 also ensure that the penalties are commensurate with the severity of the offence. This addresses a shortcoming in the current Act, where offences under section 3, that is, unauthorised access to computer material, section 5, that is, unauthorised modification to computer material and section 6, that is, unauthorised use or interception of computer services attract the same degree of penalty, even though the offences under sections 5 and 6 are more severe than those under section 3. Offences committed under section 3(1) can be compared to certain offences in the physical world, eg, that of trespassing into someone's garden or backyard instead of housebreaking. With greater use of the Internet in our society, such offences are likely to increase, based on the experience of the United States and other developed countries. For example, a person surfing on the Internet may gain access into someone's web server or personal computer out of curiosity. The penalty for the first offender is revised upwards from a fine of up to $2,000 or two years imprisonment or both, to a fine of up to $5,000 or two years imprisonment or both. The imprisonment term is kept at two years as this offence is less severe compared to the other offences in the CMA.”
“My Ministry therefore proposes that the Act be amended to protect these computer systems. Clause 7 introduces a new section 6C to enhance the penalties for offences committed against "protected computers". "Protected computers" are defined as those systems used in connection with national security, banking and finance, emergency services (such as police and ambulance services), and essential public services (such as public utilities, telecommunications, communications and transport). The punishment under this section is comparable to provisions under present legislation dealing with criminals committing offences against the State, serious mischief offences, and serious bodily harm cases. In this information age, crimes against `protected computers' could have the same detrimental effect on national security, public safety and integrity of the economic system. The Amendment Bill therefore proposes that offences committed on "protected systems" or "protected computers" be liable to enhanced penalties of up to $100,000 or imprisonment of up to 20 years. Differentiating Penalties for First and Repeat Offenders/Graduating Penalties according to Severity Sir, my Ministry also proposes to make a differentiation in the penalties imposed on first time offenders and repeat offenders. Currently, there are three basic offences in the CMA, namely: (a) An offence of unauthorised access under section 3; (b) An offence of unauthorised modification to computer material, such as introducing computer virus, under section 5; and (c) An offence of unauthorised use or interception of computer services, such as phone cloning offences, under section 6. The existing punishment for these three offences is a fine of up to $2,000 or imprisonment of up to two years or both.”
“This reliance is apparent in various essential public and private services. For instance, computer systems are used in the provision of essential day-to-day services such as telecommunications, public utilities and transportation. The telephone, mobile telephone and the paging networks which we take for granted in our daily life rely on computer systems to operate. Our land and air traffic control systems and the road traffic light control systems which ensure smooth transportation are examples of systems using computers. Even our water treatment system to ensure that our water is potable depends on a computerised process. In the business sector, banking services are also highly computerised - cheque clearance, money transfers and fund management are areas which depend on computer systems. Other areas where computers are widely used are in the military and security-related activities and in the provision of emergency services (such as medical, police and civil defence). The integrity of these systems must be safeguarded to ensure that essential services do not become the target of computer crimes. Such crimes, if perpetrated, could lead to major disruption and financial loss to the economy or even loss of life. For example, if a perpetrator overcomes security measures, accesses and alters programmes in the telecommunication computer systems causing the telephone network to crash, this would create major social and economic disruption to the country. Another example, if a perpetrator accesses the emergency call handling system of the Police or of the Singapore Civil Defence Force and modifies the programme to create problems in receiving and dispatching resources, then it will cause delay in response which may result in loss of lives or property.”
“In such crimes involving fraud and dishonesty, the culprits were usually employees of the victim companies who were entrusted with computer access or were able to access the computer systems due to poor security practices or through illegal means. The increasing use of computers for various purposes in Singapore would mean that this rising trend in computer crimes would continue. It is therefore necessary and timely to update the Computer Misuse Act (CMA) to deal with an increasingly complex environment. In addition, crimes committed through the electronic medium and through use of computers are difficult to detect but they are just as serious as traditional crimes and we must equally protect our population against such crimes. To ensure that Singapore remains an attractive place for investors and businesses to operate effectively and securely, computer crimes must be treated as seriously as other criminal offences. The proposed Bill therefore addresses three areas: (1) Enhanced security. Firstly, it strengthens the legislative framework to ensure that the use of computers and conduct of E-commerce are made more secure. It will ensure that the law is adequate to cover the various types of computer-related offences which have emerged. (2) Stronger deterrence. It aims to enhance the deterrent effect of the penalties for computer crimes. The proposed penalties will also be proportionate to the damage caused, and distinguish between first time and repeat offenders. (3) Up-to-date enforcement powers. It will give Police up-to-date powers of investigation and evidence gathering to deal with complex computer crimes. Enhanced Computer Security for `Protected Computers' Sir, like other countries, Singapore has become more reliant on computers over the years.”
“Computer crime today spans a wide spectrum and computer criminals are of various sorts and have different levels of technical know-how. Apart from this, another category of computer criminals are the hackers who break into computer systems to create mischief or make illegal gain. CID has investigated cases where students hacked into local and overseas systems in the United States and Europe. There was a case involving a hacker who hacked into local and overseas systems to obtain programmes for his Internet Relay Chat channels and free Internet access accounts. This hacker did not even pass his "O" level, so it does not mean that only those with higher education are good at computer hacking. Between 1993 and 1995, there were only three reported cases of computer crime. All were related to cloning of mobile phones. In 1996 alone, the number of reported cases increased to 14. More significantly, these cases included two cases of computer hacking and four cases of unauthorised access. In 1997, the number of cases rose to 39. In the first five months of this year, 25 cases have already been reported. There may be other cases that were unreported. The increase in the number of computer crimes and the serious implications of these offences necessitate a review of the Computer Misuse Act. Computer crime can be as serious as traditional crimes. For example, CID had investigated a case in 1997 where a technician at Motorola accessed the company's human resource system, adjusted the data base, resulting in him getting extra money or salary for a period of about two years. He also amended the salary data relating to his fiancee resulting in her getting more pay and other remuneration.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time." Introduction With the implementation of the IT2000 Master Plan formulated by the National Computer Board in 1991, Singapore is rapidly being transformed into an "Intelligent Island". The uses of information technology have become pervasive in every aspect of a society - at work, at home and even when we play. Indeed, the reliance on computers in areas such as government, business and public services has increased significantly in Singapore over the past few years. The increased use of computers has given Singaporeans a wide range of communication means and access to services. With the increased use of computers in work and at home, Singaporeans have been able to tap into a wide network of electronically stored information and services on the Internet. This has increased their productivity at work and enhanced their personal and social lives. For example, increasingly, people have been able to handle transactions with government agencies or private businesses electronically. This includes paying bills, submitting applications, booking tickets for sports and cultural events, communicating with friends and shopping. In the business arena, transactions are also increasingly done via electronic means, eg, various banks have already commenced some banking transactions through the Internet. The pace of expansion of usage of computers is phenomenal over the past few years and this pace is likely to speed up in the years to come. With greater use of computers at home and at work, not only have the number of computer related crime cases risen, but the level of sophistication has likewise increased.”
“As a significant exporter of electronic goods, Japan also competes with Singapore and some of the other regional economies in major markets such as the US and EU. The continued depreciation of the yen will therefore exert greater competitive pressure on regional exports. Finally, as shown by events in recent weeks, a weakening of the yen has a tendency to unsettle regional financial markets. EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION OF LEASES 2. Mr Shriniwas Rai asked the Minister for Law if he will consider allowing leases of up to 10 years exemption from registration.”
“(Minister for Finance, Dr Richard Hu, will reply orally to a similar Question from Mr Ang Mong Seng, MP for Bukit Gombak, in Parliament.) Japan is a significant export market for the regional economies including Singapore. It accounted for 18% of regional (Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and Brunei) exports and 7.6% of Singapore's total non-oil domestic exports in 1997. A falling yen would raise the prices of imported goods and further dampen the weak demand for regional imports including from Singapore. Japan is also an important market for Singapore's services exports. For example, it is our second largest single market for tourism, accounting for 15% of total visitor arrivals in 1997. A continuing weakening of the yen would lead to a further decline in Japanese arrivals and aggravate the slowdown in the retail, restaurant and hotel industries. The region has also been a major recipient of Japanese foreign capital. Direct investments from Japan have accounted for an increasing share of total FDI approvals in ASEAN-3 (Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia), from 15% in 1992 to 24% in 1996. In Singapore, Japan contributed a significant 21.5% of total FDI inflow between 1990-95. A weakening of the yen would adversely affect Japanese companies' overseas expansion plans. This could have a dampening effect on the growth of Japanese investments in the region. Moreover, a weakening of the yen is likely to exacerbate the weak balance sheet position of Japanese banks, which would lead to a further consolidation of Japanese international banking activities, including those in the Asian Dollar Market. This would in turn adversely affect the growth of the financial services sector in Singapore.”
“7560 to US$1 on 16th June 1998, when the Asian currencies, particularly the Yen, plunged. The Singapore dollar has since bounced back. However, the MAS manages the Singapore dollar against a weighted basket of currencies of Singapore's main trading partners, and not against any single currency. While the Singapore dollar has weakened against the US dollar, Deutschemark and Sterling, it has appreciated substantially against the Ringgit, Rupiah and Baht. On a trade weighted basis therefore, the value of Singapore dollar has appreciated slightly. This is in line with the long-term fundamentals of the Singapore economy - high savings rates and low inflation, fiscal and current account surpluses, large foreign reserves and low foreign debt. Notwithstanding our fundamentals, some volatility in the S$ exchange rate is unavoidable in the midst of the large fluctuations in the other Asian currencies. Any further decline in regional currencies would affect the value of the Singapore dollar vis-�-vis the US$, as these economies are Singapore's important trading partners. The MAS will continue to allow market forces to determine the value of the S$, consistent with Singapore's economic fundamentals. However, market excesses in overly pessimistic conditions will have to be checked by central bank intervention as was illustrated in the US-Japan joint intervention in the foreign exchange markets on 17th June 1998 to correct the sharp decline in the Yen. MAS will take the necessary steps against any unduly steep fall in the S$ and stands ready to act decisively against any unwarranted speculative attack on the Singapore dollar. How has the decline in value of Japanese yen affected our dollar and trade.”
“About 700 Malaysian-registered buses pass through the Woodlands Checkpoint each day, ferrying Malaysian workers to factories in Singapore. While the workers alight at the arrival hall to have their travel documents endorsed by Singapore Immigration and Registration (SIR) officers, the buses would wait for them at the coach-parking bay located just after the arrival hall. Due to space constraints, a maximum of nine buses can park at the bay at any one time. The other buses proceed to Admiralty Road to wait for the workers. It takes about 10 -15 minutes for a busload of workers to clear immigration. The peak hours for the entry of these Malaysian-registered buses are from 5 am to 8 am, 1 pm to 2.30 pm, and 7.30 pm to 11.00 pm, reflecting changes in shifts at our factories. The congestion is aggravated by other peak hour traffic. However, there is no serious congestion to traffic flow along Admiralty Road because it is a three-lane road. Frequent police patrols have helped to regulate traffic. The Police also take enforcement action against buses and other traffic offenders that obstruct traffic. The congestion at the Woodlands Checkpoint will be resolved when the new Checkpoint is completed by the middle of next year. It will have adequate parking facilities for buses. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS THE SINGAPORE DOLLAR 1. Mr Shriniwas Rai asked the Deputy Prime Minister (a) what steps the Government intends to take to check the decline of the Singapore dollar; and (b) how has the decline in value of Japanese yen affected our dollar and trade. BG Lee Hsien Loong: What steps the Government intends to take to check the decline of the Singapore dollar. In the first 2 weeks of June, the S$ had weakened against the US$ from below S$1.6000 to US$1, to as much as S$1.”
“For severe cases, TP can charge the offender in Court, for which he can be fined up to $1,000 or be jailed up to 3 months for first time conviction, or fined up to $2,000 or be jailed up to 6 months for subsequent convictions. ILLEGAL PARKING BY MALAYSIAN-REGISTERED BUSES 33. Mr Hawazi Daipi asked the Minister for Home Affairs how the Traffic Police will overcome the problem of illegal parking by Malaysian-registered buses along Woodlands Centre Road and Admiralty Road which have been contributing to daily traffic jams in Marsiling.”
“Bus and lorry drivers, and motorcyclists honk their horns early in the morning at queue-cutters along the Causeway Bridge and at the road leading to the mini-checkpoint, which operates between 6 and 9 am to clear motorcyclists entering Singapore. Some motorcycles also spill onto the path of buses and lorries, impeding their movement and posing an accident risk. The cause of the indiscriminate use of horns at the checkpoint is queue jumping and spill over of motorcyclists into the paths of other vehicles during the peak period. Police has addressed this problem by enhancing its presence at the road leading to the mini-checkpoint to deter drivers and riders from jumping queue, and from blocking the movement of other vehicles. For example, its officers are now deployed at the Causeway Bridge one-hour earlier, from 5 am. It has also issued summonses to motorists who honk unnecessarily. In addition, Traffic Police (TP) is working with the Land Transport Authority to put up more signs reminding motorists not to horn unnecessarily. Police is also preparing advisory leaflets to remind motorists to drive in an orderly manner and not to cause a nuisance by horning. These leaflets will be distributed to motorists entering and departing Singapore. Nevertheless, the Police can only do so much. It is only through public education that we can encourage our motorists and motorcyclists to be courteous to other road users. Loud horning is an offence if there is a gazetted "No horning" sign displayed. There is such a sign located near the Causeway Checkpoint. This offence can be compounded with a fine of $50.”
“The Police is already working closely with other relevant agencies such as the HDB, Town Councils, URA, LTA and grassroots organisations to address the problem of foreign vehicles, in particular motorcycles, which are parked illegally in HDB estates. Illegal parking in HDB estates can take various forms, such as along public roads and footpaths, in HDB car parks or at HDB void decks. Police have always taken, and will continue to take, enforcement action against vehicles, including foreign-registered ones, that are illegally parked on public roads, especially where such parking causes serious obstruction to traffic flow. HDB wardens and Town Council officers are respectively responsible for enforcement action against vehicles that are illegally parked within HDB car parks and at HDB void decks. Police's assessment is that illegal parking within HDB estates is generally under control. Town Councils have been able to deal with complaints of illegal parking at HDB void decks. Where illegal parking, be it by foreign or local-registered vehicles, is rampant, Police and the relevant agencies would jointly work out ways to address the problem. Solutions to the problem can include public education, enhanced enforcement or even road scheme engineering. ONE-OFF GRANT TO SUBSIDISE OPERATING EXPENSES OF VOLUNTARY WELFARE ORGANISATIONS 26. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for Community Development whether he will consider providing a one-off grant to subsidise the operating expenses of voluntary welfare organisations which are presently facing difficulty in raising funds for their operations.”