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 38 of 64.
“Traffic fines are currently imposed on drivers of foreign vehicles for various offences: by the Traffic Police for non-compliance with our traffic laws such as speeding and parking along public roads; by HDB and URA for parking offences within HDB and URA carparks; and by LTA for flouting traffic laws relating to vehicle usage and regulation, such as Area Licensing Scheme and Electronic Road Pricing Scheme, and emission of excessive exhaust fumes. More than 260,000 summonses issued by Traffic Police, HDB, URA and LTA between 1995 and 1997 against foreign registered vehicles are still outstanding today: 53,927 by Traffic Police, 167,718 by HDB, 29,635 by URA and 11,467 by LTA. We do not have these statistics prior to 1995. Between 1995 and 1997, a total of 14,318 warrants of arrest were issued against foreign motorists: 4,186 for Traffic Police-related offences, 8,629 for HDB/URA parking offences and 1,503 for LTA-related offences. The majority of the foreign drivers who did not pay up their fines or were issued warrants of arrest were Malaysians. As at 31st December 1997, the total amount of traffic fines which is outstanding from drivers of foreign vehicles is $8.1 million. Of this, $3.9 million was for Traffic Police-related traffic offences. $3.5 million was for HDB/URA parking offences, and $0.70 million for LTA-related traffic offences. ILLEGAL PARKING OF FOREIGN VEHICLES 24. Mr Goh Choon Kang asked the Minister for Home Affairs if his Ministry will work together with the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and Town Councils to address the problems of illegal parking of foreign vehicles, in particular motor cycles, in HDB estates.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. PREPARATIONS FOR FUTURE CHANGES IN ELECTORATE TRENDS”
“Sir, we have many Bills more to come. So, Members, please come back tomorrow. ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“Sir, I thought that the debate on the Electronic Transactions Bill would be like an electronic transaction, but it was not. It took a longer time than I expected. I think the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill may take longer than 40 minutes. We are not going to misuse our time. But since we are going to come back tomorrow for the other Bills, I would prefer to take my Bill tomorrow.”
“180) and to make consequential amendments to other written law, and to make provisions generally for matters connected therewith", presented by the Minister for Communications (Mr Mah Bow Tan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. CONTROL OF PLANTS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Control of Plants Act (Chapter 57A of the 1994 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Hng Kiang); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. MONETARY AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move a business motion. Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the motion be moved? Hon. Members indicated assent. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 and that the Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Finance be made at 5.00 pm today. [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. BILLS INTRODUCED LAND TITLES (STRATA) (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Land Titles (Strata) Act (Chapter 158 of the 1988 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 1996 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. MERCHANT SHIPPING (CIVIL LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION FOR OIL POLLUTION) BILL "to give effect to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1992 and to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1992, and to repeal the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act (Cap.”
“Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the rationale for the Urban Redevelopment Authority to proceed with the tendering of the Marina site even though it is obvious that no meaningful tender can be expected during this economic crisis; and (b) whether the Minister will consider the option of allowing separate developers to bid for smaller parcels when tender is to be re-called in the near future, as long as they conform to the overall planning intention so that it may attract higher premiums.”
“As at 30th April 1998, there were 5,258 drug addicts receiving treatment and rehabilitation, of whom 275 were residing in halfway houses (HWH). Socio-economic characteristics 55% of the inmates in our Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs) and HWHs are Malay. More than 60% of the inmates are between 25 and 39 years old. 51% and 40% have attained primary and secondary education respectively. Recidivism In 1997, the average relapse rate was 66%. From its peak of 81% in 1994, 1997 was the third consecutive year the relapse rate had fallen. Aftercare rehabilitation needs A Prisons Department survey showed that employment was the top concern of 32% of the inmates, followed by the need for continued counselling (21%) and vocational training opportunities (21%). Our current rehabilitation programmes already focus on offering employment opportunities and aftercare support for recovering drug addicts. Workshops in DRCs offer work opportunities for the inmates and enable them to learn on-the-job skills. SCORE also offers a variety of vocational and generic training courses for drug inmates. Addicts may improve their employability by upgrading their educational levels through "BEST" and "WISE" programmes. In the area of aftercare support, the Community Based Rehabili tation Programme (CBR) allows addicts to be released earlier into the community to continue their rehabilitation in a supportive environment. CBR emphasises stable work, regular counselling and continuous support from either the family or the community. SCORE also runs a structured and comprehensive counselling programme called the Aftercare Counselling Programme (ACP) for drug addicts. More than 1,600 recovering addicts and their families have benefited from the ACP. TENDER OF MARINA SITE 45.”
“The local banks, in consultation with MAS, had in 1997 set aside substantial provisions to cater to the potential risks arising from their exposure to the regional economies, including Indonesia. In view of the current situation in Indonesia, the local banks have indicated that they would set aside additional provision in 1998 for their exposure to Indonesia. CREATION OF NEW JOBS THROUGH NEW INVESTMENTS 29. Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed asked the Minister for Manpower what types of new jobs will be created through new investments and whether they will match the many workers that are expected to be retrenched this year.”
“We wish President Habibie and his new Government success in dealing with the tough challenges facing Indonesia today. We hope that he will succeed in restoring political certainty and confidence, the pre-requisites of economic recovery. A stable and prosperous Indonesia will contribute significantly to regional stability. Indonesia has been a key player in ASEAN since its inception. It has contributed greatly to the steady and peaceful development of ASEAN. We are confident that Indonesia will continue to do so for a long time to come. (b) Though Indonesia is in political transition, relations between Singapore and Indonesia remain good. Singapore will continue to work with Indonesia, both bilaterally and within ASEAN, to further strengthen our close relations to the benefit of both countries. As Members were told earlier, Singapore will assist Indonesia with its proposed bilateral trade finance guarantee scheme. As for humanitarian assistance to Indonesia, as Members know, the Singapore Red Cross has launched a campaign to raise S$5 million on 24th March 1998. As of 23rd May 1998 it has already raised S$1.8 million. EXPOSURE OF SINGAPORE BANKS 28. Mr Shriniwas Rai asked the Deputy Prime Minister, in view of the current situation in Indonesia, whether the exposure of the Singapore banks has increased, and, if so, whether he could provide the House the extent of this exposure. BG Lee Hsien Loong: As at 30th April 1998, the 6 local banking groups had loans and investments amounting to $3.9 billion (1.6% of their total assets) in Indonesia. This is $1.5 billion or 28% lower than it was in December 1997.”
“This statesmanlike step was the final act of 32 years of service to his country. President Soeharto's achievements, both in Indonesia and the region, were many and distinguished. They will not be forgotten. In accordance with the Indonesian Constitution, Vice President Dr B J Habibie succeeded President Soeharto. The transfer of office in Indonesia was accomplished peaceably and constitutionally. President Habibie has said that he would implement political and economic reforms. The Indonesian people will decide on the nature, pace and direction of their political development. On 22nd May 1998, President Habibie announced his new Reform Development Cabinet. He has retained respected economic ministers, led by Coordinating Minister for Economy, Finance and Industry Dr Ginandjar Kartasasmita. President Habibie also declared his commitment to the programme of reforms agreed with the IMF. The World Bank and the IMF have responded positively. We hope that this will encourage an early return of confidence in the Indonesian economy. Indonesia's Government faces many challenges. Expectations of political and economic reforms are high. The new Cabinet recognises that its immediate goal is social and political stability to achieve economic recovery. The country's large private debt is now estimated at about US$80 billion. Problems of inflation, unemployment, the difficulty of trade and the reconstruction of the banking system must also be dealt with. Indonesia must also repair supply and distribution networks that were disrupted in the recent unrest, so as to ensure a steady supply of essential goods. The new Government will come under intense pressure to resolve the economic problems quickly.”
“Statistics on the number of cyclists killed or injured by motor vehicles on our roads are readily available only for the period 1992-1997. On average, 15 cyclists were killed and 17 seriously injured each year in road accidents (see details below). CYCLISTS KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED IN ROAD ACCIDENTS Year Killed Seriously Injured Total 1992 18 15 33 1993 17 19 36 1994 17 21 38 1995 6 17 23 1996 14 16 30 1997 15 13 28 Average 15 17 A bicycle is currently already classified as a vehicle under the Road Traffic Act, and bicycle riders are deemed to be vehicle drivers. Under both Road Traffic and Pedestrian Crossing Rules, it is an offence to cycle on a footway or pedestrian crossing. Anyone above the age of seven who cycles on a footway or pedestrian crossing can be fined up to $1,000 or jailed up to 3 months. The number of pedestrians seriously injured by cyclists on pedestrian walkways is negligible, with most sustaining only minor injuries. However, it is still an offence to cycle on pedestrian walkways as there is a possibility of injury to both cyclists and pedestrians arising from collisions. Those who cycle for recreational purposes should go to designated parks where bicycle tracks are available. Those who cycle on roads have to obey traffic rules, like any motorist. ASSESSMENT OF INDONESIA'S POLITICAL SITUATION 27. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the Government's assessment of the political situation in Indonesia and how it could affect the stability of the region; and (b) what is the response of the Government in preparation for the likely scenario. Prof S. Jayakumar (for the Prime Minister): (a) The situation in Indonesia is calmer after two weeks of unrest. President Soeharto resigned on the morning of Thursday 21st May 1998.”
“So whatever it is, whatever amendment that Mr Rai would like to make, particularly the one that he talked about, and his whole motion starts off with recognising the need to be less adversarial, that I cannot support.”
“Sir, in the spirit of consensus seeking, Mr Rai has shown me a note of his intention to amend his motion. Again, do not consider me as an adversary if I disagree with him this time round. Because his motion reads, "That this House recognises the need to evolve a parliamentary system [even without those words that he wanted to take out] which will further strengthen the process of consultation, consensus and conciliation." Firstly, I do not see Parliament having a need to evolve such a system. As I have explained, this Parliament is for the Opposition and the ruling party to debate policies and programmes openly so that each side can present their ideas, programmes and policies so that they can win the next election. The contention between political parties is unavoidable. That is why Parliament is adversarial. There may be different degrees of being adversaries. Whether Dr Tan Cheng Bock is right or I am right, it does not really matter. What matters is that in this system that we have, it is necessarily adversarial because different political parties will have different policies and we must disagree. Even if we agree to disagree, we can do it civilly no doubt. But since political parties are there to win elections and to form the government, they would take their respective position. In so far as other views are concerned, the way we should conduct our business, I agree, yes, we can be civil, we can be consultative, we can be consensus seeking and indeed, as I have noticed that many of the MPs who spoke up were actually NMPs. And the Opposition is conspicuously absent. Not a single one is here! I do not know whether it indicates that they do not support Mr Rai's motion or they simply voted with their feet. I will leave it to you to draw the conclusion.”
“I think that is the duty of the Government, that is, to decide in the best interest of the people and when there is no time, we just have to do it, and we will do it. In fact, that is what the people expect of a strong, just and fair Government, which is what the PAP is all about during the last few decades. The test of the effectiveness of this Government really, as Mr Rai suggested, is whether it has improved the living standards of the people, whether it has improved life for the people. Whether Government has done well or not depends on whether its policies are good for the people, and the people will decide. Indeed, the people decided, election after election, since 1959 that what the PAP Government did, and is doing, for them is good for them. And that is why we are here. Singaporeans indeed can be and are justifiably proud of the achievements of Singapore, despite our size, and Singapore does stand tall among the community of nations.”
“I say that just in case, and lest that people in future look at the Hansard think that we should evolve that way and be less adversarial. Let us not be misunderstood. We simply do not agree with his approach. It would not happen. The lesson from the British is that they have been talking about having a less adversarial system for years. I went to ask the Librarian to help me research some articles. There were piles of articles written on the British Parliament and how it is doing and how it serves people's interests and whether it should not be less adversarial, etc. Till today, after years of debate, they have not come to a consensus. I do not think they will. Outside Parliament, indeed, the Government will continue with its consultation, consensus building process to get views, canvass views, feedback, suggestions, ideas from Singaporeans who want to contribute through various means, incorporate them wherever possible, feasible, practicable, and we will also continue to co-opt individuals to serve in the Government, in the statutory boards, in our committees, in our councils, and so on, so that these people can also take part in the decision-making process of the Government. One does not have to be part of Government but one can be, as a private individual, sit in our statutory boards, in our Economic Committees, etc., and one's views will still be valued. So the Government will continue to do that. But while the Prime Minister has talked about a consultative, participative process, let us not forget that when the time comes to make firm decisions because of the urgency of the matter, because of the peculiarity of the subject, the Government will not hesitate to make these firm decisions without consultation with the people.”
“It is adversarial. As regards other suggestions by Mr Rai to enlarge the NCMP scheme or have some percentage of this House be elected by proportional representation, I think they are not workable, especially if his intention is to have a less adversarial Parliament. Just one example of an NCMP, we know that it is already very adversarial. Imagine if we have more NCMPs in this House, I think the mood and atmosphere in this House will be much more adversarial. If we were to have a percentage of our MPs here represented on proportional representation, I think that will also not be good for us. Why? Because then different cause parties, different interest groups, different segments of the society will then form parties to appeal to a certain segment of the people in order to be elected in this House. This will then spawn all kinds of groups and groupings that would not be good for the interest of our nation. So we should not tinker with this electoral system that we now have. In fact, if I look at the contributions made by NMPs and the way they debate policies, even if they do not agree with the Government, I think they are very constructive and very useful. It is a lesson for the Opposition. With their presence, I see really very little need for NCMPs to be here to contribute to the debate in this House. To sum up, Sir, while I note Mr Rai's honourable intention to make this House less adversarial, I do not agree with his proposals, particularly the ones that he suggested that we consult the Opposition or to enlarge the NCMP scheme or to have proportional representation, because these will do us no good. So I do not support his motion in that respect. I cannot just vote partly for it and the other part against it.”
“But most of the time, I would say practically all the time, we will not find a shred of it that is useful. Some of them may be helpful in setting us thinking about how to overcome some of their problems or some of their objections. But we know that they have not got the slightest idea as to how to make this place better. I also do not think the opposition parties will help reach consensus in this House. Because, by doing so, they come to agreement with us, and they will diminish their role and the electorate will say, "No use having the opposition because they always agree with the PAP." What about the PAP? Supposing the PAP were to agree with the opposition all the time, then the people will say, "Why do we need the PAP? I might as well vote for the opposition." But let me assure Members that that would not be the case. Indeed, if we have a debate on, say, a Bill that goes to a Select Committee, I think the proceedings of those debates will be less adversarial, which opposition MPs and even PAP MPs will concede, because they are outside for the scrutiny of the public and the media. But the moment we have the public sitting here in the gallery and the press reporting this event, I think both sides, the opposition and the Government, will give their contending views and eventually try to convince the public that their view is much better. This is what party politics is all about. It is inherent in our system because different parties have different ideas, different ideals, different policies and different programmes. Indeed, if they are not different, then there will be no party politics to speak of. The layout of these seats, for example, already shows that we are adversarial. Now, of course, I do not want to be adversarial with you but that is the origin of it.”
“Ho Peng Kee, you know that he has got a speech prepared and all the points that Mr Jeyaretnam brought up have been anticipated. He was so predictable that we know what he was going to say. So there were no surprises. What is new from the opposition? We know that there would not be anything new. Indeed, should we only consult the three opposition Members here, or two elected ones? Should we? Are they the only opposition voices in Singapore? Certainly not. Because we have the PKMS, the SDP, the NSP and many others. Since they are also the opposition, should the Government also not consult these opposition parties in order to carry consensus seeking to the extreme? It seems logical to do so. But I do not think we should do so. Because, in the first place, these people have not earned their place here. Secondly, even when they are out there, I do not think they can even look after themselves. For example, where is the SDP now? They had three Members in this House before the last election. Two were not re-elected because their performance in the previous five years had shown up their performance in this House as well as in their constituencies. Mr Chiam left the SDP long before the election and today he is still here, of course, but he has another party, another platform, another organisation. But what about the rest? Some cannot even look after their own affairs, what about being consulted on national affairs. I think it is not fair to put that burden on them. Indeed, if there are any contributions or improvements to be made to policies, the opposition should make them here in this House. Then we can debate and reach the best conclusions. If their views are constructive, useful and relevant, the Government will acknowledge, accept and implement them.”
“The role of the opposition in Parliament will be to poke holes, maybe even worse, to criticise and to tear down all these policies that we want to implement, or even to question the very need for these policies. That is their role. They will attack us. If they do not do their job, and if they support us, reach consensus with us, then they are not the opposition. So the very nature of party politics that we have inherited, even so in Britain now, will ensure that the proceedings in this House will always be adversarial. There is no running away from that. We can be civil. But civil does not mean that we will not be adversarial. Indeed, if Members look back at the Hansard in the 50s and early 60s when we had an opposition, there were far more bickerings and noisy and nasty debates in this House. As Mr Rai said, the opposition, even till today, will oppose for the sake of opposition, not just because the policy is no good, but even if the policy is good, it will also oppose it. So there is no reason why the PAP Government should consult the opposition in this House whenever we discuss our policies. The only place and time to really debate policies is when the House debates the Bills, motions or statements. Then both sides can properly scrutinise these statements or policies and argue their case and try to convince each other, if not, at least definitely to convince the electorate that "my view is better than yours". That is the nature of party politics. There is no way that we can avoid being adversarial. In any case, even if we want to consult them, I do not think there is much that we can get out of them because they are just bereft of ideas. We heard more than an hour of Mr Jeyaretnam raking up an old issue. He was so predictable. If you listened to Prof.”
“Seek to understand their aspirations and their difficulties. Address their concerns where you can and meet their needs for better local facilities. Consolidate your position by working harder and winning the confidence and trust. Start working now. For the next general election in 2002, use the next five years to show what we can do to make our people's lives better.' So all our PAP MPs know their responsibilities. In fact, we have always told the people and even the opposition that we do not just prepare for the next election just before or during the nine days of the campaign. We prepare for the next election the very day we win our last general election. Mr Rai suggested that one way to help us evolve into a less adversarial Parliament is to consult the opposition in Parliament whenever major policies are discussed. I do not agree with that. I will tell him why. Parliament is not a forum or a conference room where we host seminars and dialogues. There we can exchange views. We can have IPS, Roundtable discussions, Socrates' Circle, or we can have "Time Square Society", whatever it is for such purposes. But Parliament is not this kind of organisation. Parliament is a serious place. It is a place where MPs who are elected by the people come and contribute to policy making and for them to scrutinise the policies. These include the PAP MPs. They will scrutinise Government policies and make sure that these policies are good for the people and the nation and in our interest. After winning every election, the party in power, in this case the PAP, will put forth its policies and programmes to seek the support of the legislature so that eventually when they are implemented, it will win again at the next election. What is the role of the opposition here?”
“In fact, by rating the Singapore legislature as the best in the region, the respondents [these are businessmen] in our survey appear to be saying that these factors [earlier on it talked about other factors such as the quality of the police and the quality of our judiciary] were more important to them than the lack of a strong opposition able to act as a check on the government.' It went on to say: `Sometimes, PAP backbenchers also play the role of a de facto political opposition, bringing up issues that in other countries would fall more naturally within the purview of the government's opponents.' That is what is said of this House. So we conduct our business in a dignified and business-like manner and in seriousness, not one where, as the Member has observed in other countries, slippers, shoes, or even water guns are being thrown or fired at one another. Mr Rai specifically talked about the contempt or public perception that some PAP Members have on the opposition. I do not agree with that. We cannot give respect to a person unless that person really earns it. So respect has to be earned. Has success got into our heads or not, just because we have been returned overwhelmingly by the people? I think not. After every general election, the Prime Minister will invariably send a letter to all the PAP MPs (he is responsible only for PAP MPs), and he will remind them of what their responsibilities are. Let me quote from a letter which he wrote to all the PAP MPs on 9th January 1997 after the last general elections. He said: `Victory must not go into our heads. The responsibilities we have to shoulder require us to be humble, not arrogant. Reach out to all your constituents, work hard to win over those who did not support you this time.”
“It is a question of the Government setting out policies and implementing them, or the Government presenting Bills to be passed in Parliament into law and having a full debate of these, and eventually the legislature decides, "Yes, that is the kind of law we should have". Parliament votes on the Bills, and we implement them, and the court will then interpret those laws. At the end of the term, it is the people who will decide whether this Government has done well or not. It is not for Mr Speaker or Mr Deputy Speaker to say, "Good policy. I approve or disapprove, or I reject it, or this is my decision." No. It is for the people. The people will give that verdict. So it is very different from the judiciary and we therefore cannot emulate the judiciary in following a consultative, mediatory, conciliatory approach to our disputes. Because that is actually not a dispute between the Government and the opposition. It is a question of different policies which I will touch on afterwards. Indeed, in our Parliament, the way we have conducted our business has been well reported. Not that we need to seek accolades, but Members may have read of these reports by consultants and other international agencies. My colleague, the Minister of State quoted PERC, IMD, WEF Reports, etc. They speak very well of our Parliament. I would not want to take up too much of Members' time but let me just quote one short passage from what PERC said in their survey in July last year: `The standard of debate [ie, in Parliament] is arguably much better than in many countries in Asia.”
“But we did it, because we believe that it is in the interest of Singaporeans that, who knows, some day a profligate government may be elected into power and it just squanders away all the hard earned reserves that we have accumulated over the years. So we should now start a process to ensure that the reserves that we have would not be squandered. Mr Rai quoted the example of the judiciary system and asked us to take a leaf from it. He said that since the judiciary has evolved and been made less adversarial, it has been more consultative and it allows mediation and conciliation, and so on, Parliament should follow suit. I think there is a big difference between what the judiciary does and what Parliament does. What the judiciary does is that it settles disputes for parties. If there is no dispute between parties, then nobody needs to go to the courts. But because there is a dispute, whether it is a dispute between an individual and an individual, or an individual against a corporation, or a corporation against a corporation, or even a corporation against the Government, they need a third party to help settle the dispute. Before they eventually go to court, they get into a process of consultation, mediation or conciliation on the points that they agree, and the parts for which they cannot agree, the judge will listen to both sides of the story and eventually give his decision and verdict. But the role of Parliament and the role of the Government are very different. It is a not a question of dispute between the opposition and the PAP.”
“They were reports prepared by earnest and serious people who had spent time and the Government had also spent a lot of time going through each of the recommendations. Eventually, when these recommendations were adopted, we spent money implementing them. And, indeed, today, you see the results of many of these suggestions which have been implemented by the Government. Indeed, as the Prime Minister said last year, he wanted more Singaporeans to participate and there are channels for them to do so. Mr Rai has quoted the Prime Minister and I shall not go into it. Sir, all these measures that we have taken are really for the good governance of Singapore. I do not agree with Mr Rai when he said that we have been subjected to heavy criticisms from the Western press or media on our system of governance. I think not. Indeed, they have praised us, not that we need the praise or we want the praise in order to do a good job. But people looked at our system when they came here, and they went away and say, "Yes, this is a serious place. This is a place where people make decisions based on rational arguments and they implement what they say." So they went away and said the system of governance here is correct and I think we should continue to uphold the system. Regardless of whether there is an opposition in Parliament or not, the PAP Government will continue to devise policies with the interest of the people at heart. It is not a question of staying in power. If it is so, we will not have devised the Elected President system, for example, to check our power. Where in the world can you find a ruling Government devising a system to check its own power?”
“People turned up at election rallies, listened to the speeches, enjoyed and lapped them up. They went home, quite happy, but when they cast their vote, they did not buy that story. But still, about a quarter, maybe 30%, maybe more in some cases, of those people who turned up there bought that story. They did buy that koyok of Opposition speakers. Mr Rai, Dr Lee and Mr Sin Boon Ann talked about the various channels that we have opened up in the last many years to allow people to speak up and to contribute to our nation building, to contribute to our policy formulation and so on. Indeed, there have been many such mechanisms and channels and we can, of course, open up more if people want it. And the latest one is the S21 Committee in which two Members here are actively participating and others too have been asked whether they have views and whether there are people who may have views and who may be interested in taking part in the dialogues. And all these channels are outside Parliament and certainly people are most welcome to give all their views. During the 1985 recession, we formed an Economic Committee in 1986 to look into the measures that we needed to take and to devise a new economic strategy for Singapore, and many Singaporeans took part in it. Now, we also have a similar committee and again a lot of Singaporeans are involved. Similarly, the various committees and councils we have had in 1988, 1989, 1991, for example, to write up the Agenda for Action or The Next Lap or the various Advisory Councils' Reports on the Aged, on Youth, on Culture, etc, have involved lots and lots of Singaporeans. And those were not just reports studied and filed away, and left to dry on the shelf.”
“Well, I have just recounted some examples of how some restless electorate wants to see an Opposition in Parliament. But I think most Singaporeans are sensible. They are rational. They know what it is at stake and what is in their interest. And that is why even though they may want to have heated debates in this House, they know that they cannot just have people here who would criticise or make comments without really contributing to the formulation of good policies. But during an election rally, I am sure Members know that in the last election, for example, thousands of people turned up at election rallies to listen to the Opposition attack and criticise the Government, poked fun at the Government, our policies and so on. I think the people just lapped it up. They enjoyed it. They went there for an entertainment and at the end of the day, when they cast their vote, they know what is at stake when they give that vote to the person whom they voted for. That reminds me of another part of my young childhood. I used to enjoy going to the street corner and watch at the koyok man, the Chinese medicine man, showing off his skills like swallowing steel ball-bearings. Or he may have an iron rod to poke his neck until it bends, and he also carried a drum. At the end of the day, he would say, "This is my koyok. This is my medicine that can really make you feel good. And if something happens to you, this can be a palliative to your problems." I think many people went there for a good show, enjoyed it and some may sympathise with the guy because he would pass his hat round and they would just drop some coins in there. And some people actually bought that story and bought the koyok. So it is like election rallies.”
“So we have more or less, in fact, I would say almost, eradicated this problem. But if we look around us, I think it seems to be quite natural to have corruption. And here in Singapore, we are lucky that we have worked at it and made sure that this system does not prevail and we must continue to work hard to preserve this value. Mr Rai is also right to say that it is not the Constitution or any law that determines the success of our parliamentary democracy. Indeed, it is not any law or constitution that determines the success of any institution. It is not just Parliament. We need people who are honest, people with integrity, people with the nation's interest at heart, in order to make sure that we have a good and clean system. So no number of independent commissions of inquiry or independent council or Ombudsman will make sure that we will have a good, clean and corrupt-free system. No, not at all. But if the Workers' Party were to be in charge today, I think we would have lots of that. Unfortunately, Mr Jeyaretnam is not here to hear this. In our system, we recognise people with ability. In this meritocratic system, we reward them according to their performance and they get promoted and hence they move up. And that is the social ladder that we provide for all Singaporeans, ie, the equal opportunity that we provide in our system, and we have done that. We have seen many examples of people who have moved up from the lower rungs of society to high positions in Government or in the private sector. I think there are also many examples of these people in this House. So I think this system has worked and we must ensure that it continues to work. Mr Rai said that the younger generation of Singaporeans may want to emulate the Western style of democracy.”
“In fact, there is even a price for the electorate for that matter. If the electorate really feels that there is a strong demand for some voices to be heard which will be a counter to what the Government would do or that Government policies were not to their liking, then the price they pay would be to vote in the opposition. Then they would have a new party, new government, and that is it. If they do not want to pay too much of a price, then they vote in some Opposition Members. But I think it is very difficult for the electorate to arrange for that. So, happily, the PAP has been elected time and again, because the people really want the PAP to be the government, although they do want some Opposition voices in Parliament. That is how Mr Jeyaretnam found his way into Parliament because of some unhappiness at that time in Anson, and we had Potong Pasir and subsequently at other places. And today, we are back to two elected Opposition Members. I think people knew what elected Opposition Members can really do in Parliament. Sir, Mr Rai rightly also observed that we have built up a political system that is honest and free from corruption. But I think we should not forget that this was not the situation that prevailed in Singapore in the 1950s or even up to the early 1960s. I remember, as a young boy, I followed my mother to the Siong Lim market in Jalan Besar. My mother used to tell me that if a hawker inspector in the 1950s needed food provisions, then all that person needed to do was to drive his car to the back lane of the market, leave his car unlocked and come back to find his car filled with provisions and his marketing needs for the week. That was how it was. Corruption was rife from the top and all the way down to very junior officials.”
“So we have the NCMP here today because I do not think you can find anywhere else in the world that an opposition, having contested in an election and lost, can find a place in Parliament to criticise the very party that it was opposing. Indeed, had the Opposition parties been really effective in the last 17 years Mr Jeyaretnam came to Parliament in 1981, Mr Chiam was elected in 1984 and Mr Jeyaretnam re-elected in 1984 today we would not have NMPs sitting in this House and giving us suggestions, constructive advice and the various contributions they have made in our debates. Dr Lee's analogy of supply and demand in economics is very interesting. Indeed, I fully agree with her that there is some pressure in some quarters for more discourse on public policy and therefore more people may want to speak up. In my basic understanding of economics, I thought there is a way to clear the supply and demand, and that is the price mechanism. Perhaps in politics, some people may think that there is no price to be paid to be in Parliament. I think there is. If people are really keen on a public discourse in Parliament, then the price to be paid is to contest in the elections. Win the election, and then they can be in Parliament and, hopefully, contribute to the debates in this Parliament. If they do not want to, we have the NMP scheme and it has found a way for people, to contribute to public policy discourse in Parliament. But that does not mean that if other people want to make their views heard and do not want to be in Parliament, there is no place at all to make their views heard. There are many channels which I will elaborate. In fact, the two Members have talked about how people who want to comment on public policy could do so earlier on. So there is a price.”
“Neither will I be adversarial. Sir, we inherited the British Westminster system of government and made it work. Mr Rai rightly observed just now and he quoted examples of many other countries, particularly the ex-British colonies, which tried and failed. Indeed, many of these ex-colonies went through many constitutions since their independence, from a parliamentary system of government with a Prime Minister to a Presidential system, then military coup and perhaps a Presidential form of government, maybe another coup again, and so on and so forth. I think we can see quite a few of these examples in Africa, even today. And there is no end to the problem for them. But Singapore has succeeded so far because we are willing to adapt and evolve the system that we have inherited according to the changing social and political circumstances and according to the imperatives of our multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious society. If we did not modify our electoral system, say, in 1988, today, we would not have GRCs and perhaps we would have an under representation of minority races in this Parliament. And if, in 1984, we had listened to Mr Jeyaretnam and agreed with him not to have the NCMP system, then we would not see Mr Jeyaretnam here today, and we would not have the NCMP system. Indeed, in 1984 and even before that, the Government envisaged that some of our people may want to see more heat and debate in Parliament. They wanted to see the Opposition heckling the Government, criticising it, commenting on its policies and so on. That is why in 1984, the Government amended the Constitution and also our Parliamentary Elections Act to provide for the NCMP scheme.”
“Sir, let me commend Mr Rai for moving this motion and Dr Lee for supporting him. Both have indeed made very illuminating speeches in this pretty late hour. I am sure we agree with much of what they say. And I must say personally that there are parts which I do not agree. I will talk about the parts which I agree first and, later on, I will explain the parts which I do not agree. When I get to that part of my speech, I hope that he can understand my explanation and accept what I say and agree with me, then we can reach consensus. Even if he does not want to agree with me and there is no consensus, I hope he will not consider me as an adversary.”
“Sir, if it is practical to really allow a recovering addict who is on the electronic monitoring system to be out of the home for counselling session, then I would ask my officials to consider that. For rehabilitating first timers, indeed, I think that is a point which we recognise, and that is the effort and focus of attention put in by our after-care personnel, volunteers, professional counsellors in the DRCs as well as in SCORE. We hope that these first timers, people who are caught the first time and went to DRCs, will change after being caught the first time, and that is why we have spent a lot of time trying to talk them out of it and not be caught the second time. So I think the emphasis is correct and we will spend our resources on these people who want to change, and who can be changed. 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.”
“Sir, the courts will decide based on what is in the law. The law is made in Parliament, and what is proposed in the Bill is a matter of Government policy. The Government has decided that this be the policy for treating hardcore addicts and it will be written down in the law and passed in this House, and the court will interpret it according to the law. I do not think I need to explain in great detail how the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive really work because I think Members ought to know.”
“We can only go on standard definitions. But would he not agree that if the courts are given the power to inquire, they can make the inquiry, they can call for a report, and then decide on the appropriate punishment? Would the Minister at least concede that the courts have the power and can do it?”
“I did not say that. If he had listened to me carefully, he would not be asking me this question. So, that is why I said that some people do serious research work before they come to the House; some people just look at the Bill and then ask questions without really taking the time to understand what the law is really all about. Mr Zulkifli asked about the rehabilitation for his people who are in long term imprisonment. I said that they will be treated like any other prisoners and be rehabilitated like any other prisoners. For the self-help groups that need additional help, professional assistance, etc, we will try to extend to them whatever assistance that can be justifiably made. The last point, which I forgot to mention, is about Mr Jeyaretnam's earlier example on section 33A, in making distinction between people who were caught a third time because they could have been unwittingly taking drugs the second time and therefore caught under this section. It is very difficult really for the law to make a distinction for different people with different circumstances. I think in this instance, we are very clear. Anyone with a first drug record is a first timer. Anyone with a second drug record is a second timer. And if that person is caught a third time, he is a third timer. In fact, if you ask them why they took drugs the first time, the second time, and the third time, each of them will give you a different grandmother's story. And I think it is very difficult for us to go and ascertain the veracity or truthfulness of their grandmother's story. Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask by way of a clarification? The Minister quite rightly says it is very difficult for us, meaning the Ministry. I take it, or this House, to decide whether a person is a hard-core addict or not.”
“If a person, who is required under a supervision order to turn up to give urine sample, fails to turn up, he will be an absconder. He will be arrested as an absconder.”
“All Members here know. I do not think I need to repeat what I have said earlier. If he refuses or did not want to listen or was sleeping earlier on, I see no reason why I should waste everybody's time repeating what I have said. Mr Jeyaretnam also asked about a case of a person under a supervision order and was required to report at the police station, but did not turn up at the police station and whether he was deemed to have refused to provide a urine specimen. I think if he had listened to my speech, he would know that that is not the person I am referring to. When I said that a person refuses to provide a urine specimen, I meant that when he is required to do so, ie, when he was asked to produce his urine sample, the person says, "I don't want to." Then he would be subject to that regime. [Mr Jeyaretnam interjected.] If he had listened to me and read the Bill carefully, he would not ask me the silly question.”
“Yes, whenever necessary, and if need be. In fact, we do not have a system of closed service. Police officers who are interested to become CNB officers could join the CNB or if there are certain posts that we need to fill but we cannot find enough officers, we will find officers from other services. For your information, the Director of CNB is a Police officer, and there are also others like him in the Force. Mdm Claire Chiang talked about social integration and work. I think she has also found out that indeed ISCOS, together with SCORE, do help these recovering addicts find jobs, and they have a section to help them look for jobs and, in fact, they do have work for them to keep them away from their previous company as far as possible. But really it is up to the individual who wants to change. But whether we should lift the curfew for those under electronic monitoring system or not, I think we have to consider this very carefully. Because for some of them, they really need a period of curfew. They need to stay at home, particularly during the vulnerable times in the evenings after work, they ought to stay at home with their family rather than to be tempted to mix up again with their former peers, and therefore be susceptible to drugs again. But she has also made other suggestions which I will ask my officials to look at and, if they are workable, certainly we will implement them. But we will have to discuss that. Mr Jeyaretnam said that we should try to define what a hard-core addict is. But I do not know what he was doing when I was explaining what a hard-core addict is. I suppose he can do that by reading the Bill later on if he has the time.”
“Mr Rai asked whether CNB Narcotics Officers should not be part of the Police Force. I think they are doing a very good job. There is no need to include them as part of the Police Force. But they do have certain powers of the Police officers and they have the same scheme of service as Police officers. Of course, they have other kinds of allowances. And it is better that in order for us to deal with this problem, we target this specially ---”
“Please read this section carefully, and listen to me carefully. I will come to you afterwards.”
“Since I raised this problem in 1994, we have had a series of seminars, workshops, even concerts to publicise this problem that we have. And we had a seminar a couple of months ago, and we have a concert against drug abuse at the end of this month. For those people who are interested in helping us to publicise the message of drug abuse, we have got such a concert planned. Similarly, we have also worked with the schools. The CNB officers and Police officers have gone to the schools to talk about the problem and to talk to students who are likely to fall into the trap of being a drug addict, and try to explain to them the dangers of drug abuse. All these efforts have been going on and the schools have indeed been very happy with the education programmes that CNB has worked together with them in publicising the drug abuse message. I think there has also been some mis-reading of some of the new sections of the Bill. For example, Mr Chiam said that for a second timer drug offender, he would be caught and caned. I think that is not right. We only catch people who are third timers. In other words, they are caught the third time. [Mr Chiam See Tong interjected.] No, third time. Let me assure him that - read this carefully - it is only for the third time.”
“Those who want to study actually attend courses - you may not know that - they can do GCE "O" level, "N" level, "A" level, ITE, if they have the will and the interest to study. But not many want to do that because, I suppose, they just gave up their studies and that is why they went to do other things, like committing crime or taking drugs. So I think we have to be really tough in order to be kind to them. And I do not think there is any other way to treat them. If these measures succeed in bringing down the number of drug addicts, I think it will serve the nation's purpose, it will serve the community's interest, and it will serve their families' interest, because then the family will know that indeed this person hopefully can be changed. Indeed, we also involve the family in the counselling and rehabilitation. Recently, in fact, Taman Bacaan, for example, has introduced a family education programme for the new addicts. Before they are released, their parents are brought in. But, mind you, not every parent is interested in his son or daughter who has taken drugs. Some simply refuse to have anything to do with them; some do not want to turn up; maybe some are too busy to turn up. But SCORE, Prisons or the voluntary half-way houses will try to involve the parents in the rehabilitation efforts, wherever possible. However, not all cases are possible; some cases are just impossible. Let me now try to deal with some of the specific comments. Before I get into that, let me talk about campaigns. Mr Kenneth Chen and Mr Chiam said that maybe we should have more public education, more campaigns, etc. Indeed, we have. There have been a lot of campaigns in recent years to inform the public about the drug problem.”
“Despite such rigorous enforcement action by the CNB, the number of first timer addicts arrested has gone down. I also monitor the number of new addicts. The number of new addicts caught for the first time has also gone down. What about the second timers? The same situation appears. In 1994, for second timers, those who were caught for taking drugs a second time round, they could have been after being released, having been caught the first time, maybe undetected for two years, three years, one year, or six months, for who knows how long, arrested again the second time, there were 17.4% of them. But in 1997, they were just about the same, 18.2%; March 1998, about the same, 18.2%. But those who were arrested the third time or more has increased from 66.3% to 71.1%, and this was out of an addict population in the DRCs of 5,500 in 1997. In other words, the number of drug addicts in our DRCs saw a decline from about 8,900 to about 5,500, and today, I am talking about May, the number has even gone down further, despite rigorous CNB enforcement actions. So, just the announcement of the new measures has already had an effect on the addicts. Why do we cane them? I think they really cannot learn. Some of them just do not want to learn. Some of them just have no will and no determination to learn. So, by keeping them in the prison for a long time, we will actually save them from the clutches of the drug traffickers. That is one. Secondly, we also could save them from committing crime and be punished under other laws. And thirdly, certainly they ought to be in there to reflect and be rehabilitated. What rehabilitation programmes do we have for them? They will be treated like any other prisoners. We rehabilitate our prisoners, we give them work, we give them training.”
“Even for the addicts themselves who were serving in the DRCs at that time, my Director of Prisons told me then that when this announcement was made in 1996, many of them were very worried. They were worried that since they have got one record, or two records, and if they went out again and get caught repeatedly, they would be in for these new measures. Indeed, from the statistics that I see today, there has been an improvement in the number of first time and second time drug addicts that we arrested recently. Let me take an example. In 1994, when I reported to this House, we had about 8,900 addicts in our DRCs, of which 17.3% were first timers, that means, they were caught the first time and were in our DRCs. It does not mean that they were only abusing drugs for the first time they were caught. These are very different. It just happened that they could have been using drugs for some time and finally got caught by the CNB, and we classify them as first timers. Mind you, they may have been taking drugs for, who knows, three years, five years, and not caught, and they were lucky to get away with it. We had 17.3% of these first timers in 1994 in the DRCs. But in 1997, that number had dropped to 10.9%, and up to March this year, that number had dropped to 10.7%. In other words, we now see a decline of the first timer drug addicts in our DRCs. This is despite the very rigorous enforcement actions that the CNB has been taking in the last few years, the number has been going down. Since 1996/1997, CNB has had Operation Dragnet and all kinds of code names that they used to arrest these people. You have read them in the papers. And this has been going on for a long time.”
“Indeed, I have always encouraged them to share their resources, their expertise and the knowledge that they have gained in such counselling sessions with anyone who is interested. But again, sometimes people's patience can be very thin and despite the help that we give, addicts do not want to change, and volunteers simply give up. If Members recall, years ago, SANA used to have many voluntary counsellors. Today, many of them have given up because they have seen how difficult it is to change a person. I have also mentioned in this House examples of addicts who have been in and out of the DRC and prison a number of times, some even more than a dozen times, and they have not learnt their lesson. So why do we have an amendment like this in our law? It is for these people who just simply refuse to change. Rather than letting them go to the DRC every time we arrest them, and then letting them out again after a few months, or even after a maximum of three years, then before long they are caught again, back to the DRC, after they have served their time, rehabilitation in the DRC, they went out again, but they are caught time and again; rather than wasting our time, resources and CNB's professional resources on such people, we have decided that the only way to treat these addicts is to imprison them for a long time. When I served this notice in 1996 that we would imprison these addicts for a long time, ie, a minimum of five years to seven years, if they are caught again the third time, many parents, self-help groups and volunteers really welcomed this measure. In fact, their view was that this was long overdue and ought to have been done much earlier. Then we would not have a situation as I have reported in this House in 1994 when we had more than 8,900 addicts in our DRCs.”
“" Sometimes, despite all the good-heartedness, the love and the hard work put in by volunteers in half-way houses, some of these volunteers do feel disheartened that these addicts just do not have the discipline to take the treatment. But the Government will do what it can to help them, ie, both these recovering addicts as well as the half-way houses. In terms of financial support, I think if they can justify a case to ask for more money, we will look at it, but the Government does not just spend money, throwing good money after bad money to people who do not want to change. Ultimately, whether an addict wants to recover or not, must depend on the person himself or herself. No amount of love, no amount of harsh punishment, no amount of money we throw at him or her, can make a person change if he does not want to change. I think volunteers who have seen these people will know that some of them are just desperate cases. Let me assure those who are helping in half-way houses and those who are involved in voluntary programmes that indeed we will continue to provide assistance where necessary. In fact, if Members will recall, when I announced some of these measures in this House more than a couple of years ago, I said that we are going to set up a dedicated unit in SCORE (Singapore Cooperative and Rehabilitative Enterprises) to counsel drug addicts. Indeed, such a unit had been set up. Today, we have more than 30 professional full-time counsellors. These full-time counsellors will not only counsel addicts who are in prison or the DRCs or those who need assistance, but they also provide professional assistance to those half-way houses and other counsellors who want additional back-up or training.”
“Sir, I thank the Members for making their contributions to debate this Bill. Some no doubt have done a lot of serious work because, from their speeches, I know that they have spent time talking to people. Some even have personal experiences from people they meet. Indeed, they are serious speeches which I would take seriously. There are also some speeches which are tedious because they are just a rehash of some of the themes that I have heard in this House from time to time and I would try to respond to them as well. Generally, the concerns of Members here can be classified into several areas, and let me take them one at a time. First, take the question of rehabilitation. I think those who are involved in the work of drug prevention, rehabilitation and education will know that over the last few years, we have indeed put in a lot of time, effort, money and resources in helping the various groups to improve their capabilities in rehabilitating addicts who want to recover. Setting up of half-way houses, for example, was done many years ago, but in the last few years we have intensified this effort and the Government has also given them funds to help these addicts and to help the management of half-way houses manage the half-way houses. We have also helped half-way houses to look for property and premises where they can build facilities for these recovering addicts. Now, I believe we have 14 such half-way houses. In fact, the capacity in some of them are not even full. Some still have capacity left. Even to stay in a half-way house requires discipline, determination and the will power of the addict to say, "I want to remain in the half-way house to be rehabilitated.”
“For example, clauses 8, 9, 13 and 18 of the Bill would strengthen the enforcement powers of CNB officers in relation to investigation, search and arrest of offenders under the MDA and its Regulations. Clause 12 of the Bill would provide for the mandatory forfeiture of any vehicle used in connection with an MDA offence. This is in line with similar provisions for the forfeiture of vehicles in other legislation such as the Road Traffic Act and the Immigration Act. Members may also recall last year's ruling by the Court of Appeal that "life imprisonment" should be equated to the natural life of a prisoner, rather than 20 years, as practised by the Prisons. Currently, some MDA offences attract a maximum imprisonment term of 30 years and 15 strokes of the cane. To uphold the original policy intention that the penalties for these offences should be more severe than life imprisonment, which was then taken to be 20 years, clause 20 of the Bill provides for "imprisonment for life" as an additional sentencing option for these offences. Conclusion Sir, to conclude, the proposed amendments would allow my Ministry to respond effectively to the ever-changing drug situation and to sufficiently deter drug abuse and other drug related offences. The overall drug situation may be under control today, but we must never rest on our laurels. However, in addition to tough laws and strict enforcement, I wish to assure Members that my Ministry would continue to focus on preventive drug education, treatment, rehabilitation and aftercare of recovering addicts who are amenable to change. Only by adopting a comprehensive approach towards drugs would we eradicate the drug problem in Singapore. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The 1988 UN Convention, or the Vienna Convention, as it is commonly known, is an international co-ordinated effort to make it mandatory for signatory states to criminalise drug-trafficking and its related activities, including money laundering and the use of precursor chemicals in manufacturing controlled drugs. We only formally acceded to it on 21st October 1997 because we wanted to first put in place the legal framework, which is necessary if we are to fully meet our obligations as a signatory state to the Convention. Clauses 6 and 21 of the Bill would amend the MDA to allow Singapore to give effect to its obligations under the Vienna Convention. For example, we would criminalise the manufacture, possession and distribution of precursor chemicals, controlled materials and equipment intended for the manufacture of controlled drugs. The penalties would be a maximum of 20 years' imprisonment or $200,000 fine or both. A new section 18B of the MDA would empower the Minister to make regulations for various matters relating to the control of precursor chemicals, and controlled materials and equipment, such as the licensing of their import and export, and documentation requirements for their transhipment. A related amendment is clause 23 which amends the First Schedule of the Extradition Act to include offences relating to psychotropic substances and offences relating to benefits derived from drug trafficking as extraditable offences. The latter is one of the obligations of signatory states under the Vienna Convention. Other Amendments In addition, the Amendment Bill also proposes various amendments that are essential to facilitate drug enforcement and to allow the Prisons Department and the Central Narcotics Bureau to operate more effectively.”