ASSENTS TO BILLS PASSED

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the dates stated:

     1.  Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his assessment of the political situation in Myanmar and on whether ASEAN can take bolder steps to press for a peaceful resolution to the problems in Myanmar. 

      2.  Mr Charles Chong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what measures will be considered by ASEAN in support of UN efforts to bring about reform in Myanmar; and (b) whether ASEAN will consider the imposition of targeted sanctions, restriction of non-humanitarian aid and even a review of Myanmar's membership of ASEAN should they fail to comply with the resolutions set by the UN and ASEAN. 

     3.  Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in view of Myanmar's recent show of disregard for human rights and its use of force against peaceful demonstrators (a) what is the military junta's explanation to ASEAN on its recent actions against its citizens; (b) what is the impact of the incident on Singapore; (c) what is the impact on Singapore's investments in Myanmar; and (d) what is the impact on the annual trade between Myanmar and Singapore.  

     4.  Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on Singapore's stand on continuing trade and investment in Myanmar, and on calls to use economic sanctions against the country. 

     5.  Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the recent reaction by ASEAN members on the Myanmar issue heralds the beginning of the end of the policy of non-interference long treasured by ASEAN member countries and how will this change the ASEAN dynamics. 

     6.   Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Singapore Government had anticipated the political developments in Myanmar in September 2007.

      7.  Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether Singapore has supplied arms and weapons to Myanmar; (b) what is the total value of investments by Government-linked companies in Myanmar; (c) what is the total value of remittances from Myanmar into Singapore over the past 5 years; and (d) whether the Government intends to take any action, either by itself or as ASEAN Chair, in addition to making statements and writing letters to the junta. 

      8.  Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will consider granting humanitarian assistance and aid to the Myanmar people. 

     9.  Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether and to what extent Singapore businesses are or have been engaged with the Myanmar authorities in trade and consulting in the field of military hardware and surveillance equipment. 

     10.  Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether and to what extent there are arrangements in place for military cooperation between Singapore and Myanmar. 

     The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo):  Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to take Question Nos. 1 to 10 together as they are related.

     Mr Speaker:  Yes.

     Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo:  Mr Speaker, Sir, Ms Sylvia Lim asked whether the Singapore Government had anticipated the recent developments in Myanmar. The short answer is no. We knew social discontent was building up but we could not imagine the Myanmar Government suddenly increasing fuel prices five-fold.  That ignited the protests which took the authorities by surprise.  

     Mr Speaker, Sir, to answer Dr Lily Neo, ASEAN had decided more than a year ago that since Myanmar preferred dealing with the UN over ASEAN, ASEAN would no longer defend Myanmar at international forums. We were as astonished as anyone else when the leadership suddenly shifted the country's capital to Nay Pyi Taw and were embarrassed when asked about it by others.    We were relieved when Myanmar decided to skip its turn as Chair of ASEAN last year. But we refrained from criticising Myanmar openly because it was part of the ASEAN family.

     However, we could not stay silent when the Government violently cracked down on peaceful demonstrators including Buddhist monks. ASEAN would have lost all credibility otherwise. Developments in Myanmar cast a pall on the entire region and have been raised at the UN Security Council.  ASEAN's policy of non-interference cannot be rigidly applied when internal developments in a member country affect the rest of us. This is not the first time that ASEAN is addressing the situation in Myanmar. At the Summit in Singapore in 2000, ASEAN leaders met privately with Myanmar leader Senior General Than Shwe to express their concerns. In 2003, ASEAN Foreign Ministers publicly called on Myanmar to release Aung San Suu Kyi.

     The violent suppression of dissent in Myanmar recently has evoked outrage in ASEAN and around the world. As ASEAN Chair, Singapore had to discharge its responsibility. The Prime Minister called all his ASEAN counterparts who agreed with him that ASEAN should issue a strong statement. PM also wrote to Senior General Than Shwe. I was at the United Nations in New York when the situation broke. After settling the ASEAN Charter, the ASEAN Foreign Ministers confronted our Myanmar counterpart. They agreed for me to issue the statement that I read out to the international media in their presence. 

     To answer Ms Irene Ng on the present situation, a semblance of normal life appears to have returned but we continue to receive reports of arrests and raids taking place which UN Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari described as 'extremely disturbing'. We hope that the Myanmar authorities will cease these arrests and release those detained quickly. The Myanmar government has offered talks with Aung San Suu Kyi and appointed a liaison officer. However, the offer comes with conditions. Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy has expressed a desire for talks but rejected preconditions. These are just opening moves by both sides. From Singapore's perspective, the only precondition should be a commitment by both sides to work for national reconciliation and to serve the interest of the Myanmar people.

     Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no quick and easy solution.  All parties in Myanmar need to take a fresh approach because it is clear that the old way led to nowhere.  The present lull cannot last if the process towards national reconciliation does not gather momentum. However, we must be prepared for negotiations to be long and complicated. There is a limit to the influence of the outside world.  Myanmar is a resource-rich country and the Government has long been inclined to self-isolation since the days of General Ne Win.  The Western embargo has not been effective because Myanmar's giant neighbours, China and India, have kept the back and side gates open. ASEAN's economic leverage is not significant but ASEAN does wield moral influence.  Myanmar would rather remain a part of the ASEAN family than be by itself a buffer state sandwiched between two rising powers.

     Mr Charles Chong, Mr Siew Kum Hong and Ms Irene Ng asked if we would consider putting more pressure on the Myanmar government, such as sanctions, or withdrawal of aid, or even a review of Myanmar's ASEAN membership. Indeed there have been strident calls to bring down the military regime. The key consideration here is to help the process of national reconciliation not make it more difficult.  Some external pressure can be helpful.  But, as Malaysia's Foreign Minister Syed Hamid said recently, talking about sanctions or expulsion now would make national reconciliation harder not easier to achieve.  Aung San Suu Kyi herself acknowledges the need to involve the military.   Without the military, Myanmar can dissolve into civil war.  The country has many ethnic groups, a number of which are still armed and can easily restart rebellions in the border regions.  The last thing we want is a Yugoslavia or an Iraqi situation at our doorstep.  In this regard, ASEAN shares a common position with China and India.  Thant Myint-U, the grandson of the third Secretary General of the UN U Thant, who is no apologist for the regime, has wisely cautioned that "We don't want Myanmar to be a parallel of Iraq, where we said it's good Saddam Hussein is no longer there, but then did not know how to handle the insurgency that went on after he was gone."

     Our priority now must be to support the UN Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari in his mediation efforts.  Acting on the authority of the UN Security Council, Mr Gambari plays a critical role as a catalyst.  Somehow he has managed to earn the trust of both the military and Aung San Suu Kyi. The Myanmar authorities have made it clear they prefer to deal with him rather than with ASEAN. A year and a half ago,  the Myanmar authorities rebuffed the Chairman of ASEAN at that time, Syed Hamid, but they have received Mr Gambari three times and allowed him on all three occasions to meet Aung San Suu Kyi.  It is important that whatever actions we take strengthen his hand and not make his already complicated task more difficult. Different countries have different roles to play in accordance with their values and their geopolitical interests. The US and EU have stepped up sanctions and expressed strong views. China has quietly played a very helpful role in facilitating Mr Gambari's last visit to Myanmar. Although Japan has cut aid, it has taken a position closer to ASEAN.

     I know a number of Members in this House would like ASEAN to cut off all links with Myanmar.  But this would only give us short-term satisfaction.  On our own, our economic influence is not significant.  If we in ASEAN boycott Myanmar, we would lose our moral influence which is not insignificant.  Such an approach would only worsen the long-term position for us.  In any case, the preference of all the ASEAN countries is to continue engaging Myanmar and keeping it in the family.  This is certainly Singapore's preference.

     Ms Irene Ng, Mr Siew Kum Hong and Ms Sylvia Lim have asked about Singapore's economic and military links with Myanmar. Singapore has limited economic links with Myanmar. Before the Asian financial crisis, we did encourage our businessmen to invest and to do more in Myanmar.  At that time, there was hope that the Government was taking the Indonesian road from an authoritarian military government to constitutional democracy.  But when Suharto fell in 1998, the Government in Yangon froze and the economy slid backwards. Generally speaking, our businessmen are not doing well in Myanmar and many regret having invested there.  Singapore companies' cumulative total direct investments in Myanmar for the year ending 2005 was only S$742 million.  MTI does not keep track of how much of this is by GLCs, because the Government is not involved in the individual investment decisions of GLCs. 

     Overall, our total trade with Myanmar last year was S$1 billion, which represents only 0.1% of Singapore's total trade.  Myanmar ranked 50th among our trading partners.  Therefore, our policy on Myanmar does not hinge on this.   Instead, our actions are guided by what is best for the long-term interests of ASEAN.  
 
     As for remittances, MAS does not track the amount of money remitted into or out of Singapore by any country.  For an international business and financial centre like Singapore, funds can be transferred for various purposes including payments for goods and services, trades on the stock exchange, even for school fees. But MAS operates a strict and rigorous regime against money laundering, like all other leading financial centres.  Banks and financial institutions in Singapore are required to institute strict procedures, including the need to identify and know their customers, and monitor and report any suspicious transactions. Our rules are vigorously enforced.  Should there be links with illicit activity, MAS will not hesitate to take necessary action. 

     If there are UN mandated sanctions against Myanmar, we will of course comply with them.  Whatever policy we adopt must apply to all companies operating in Singapore, not just owned by Singaporeans.

     Singapore has very few defence interactions with Myanmar. But we have to maintain links with the military because it is a key institution. These are largely limited to interactions at multilateral events such as ASEAN-related meetings, international defence exhibitions, and sports activities like the Army Half Marathon.  As far as defence sales are concerned, it is established policy of the Government not to divulge details publicly. Myanmar is not subject to any UN arms embargo. If there is any UN sanction against Myanmar, Singapore will of course abide by it. Nevertheless, I can say that over the years, defence sales to Myanmar have not been substantial, and have always been carefully limited to items that are not suitable for countering civilian unrest. There have not been any defence sales to Myanmar in recent years and, going forward, we will continue to behave in a responsible manner. 

     Ms Eunice Olsen asked whether the Government would consider granting humanitarian assistance to the Myanmar people. We would certainly do so if there is a request from Myanmar. Singapore has provided significant technical assistance to Myanmar for human resource development over the years. To date, we have trained more than 6,000 Myanmar officials in several areas, including English language, tourism, IT, civil aviation and telecommunications. We do not intend to stop such assistance. Under the Initiative for ASEAN Integration, we have established a training centre in Yangon.  Should one day the Myanmar Government open up and request further assistance from us, we will certainly do all we can. 

     Mr Charles Chong (Pasir Ris-Punggol):  Mr Speaker, Sir, the UN Envoy Gambari was reported to have asked ASEAN to go beyond this rhetorical support for its mission.  Would the Minister tell us if ASEAN is willing to consider trying to influence China, India and Japan to try and bring about change in Myanmar?

      Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo:  China, Japan and India have stated their positions on Myanmar publicly, so these are on the record. Next month, we are having the ASEAN Summit, during which Myanmar is bound to be discussed. We fully expect Myanmar to be present, and to sign the ASEAN Charter, the legal scrubbing of which, was happily completed at midnight on Saturday.  Professor Tommy Koh reported this to me this morning. After that, we will have the East Asian Summit, where the leaders of ASEAN will meet the leaders of China, Korea, Japan, India, Australia and New Zealand. I am quite sure at that Summit, Myanmar will be discussed again. In fact, I have received phone calls from some of the Foreign Ministers who informed me that they intend to raise Myanmar during the Summit. Then after that, on 22nd November, the leaders of ASEAN will be meeting the leaders of Europe, during the Commemorative Summit, and no doubt Myanmar will again be an issue on the agenda.

     To facilitate our work, I will be visiting Beijing this Friday, to have consultations with the Chinese Foreign Minister, and with the Japanese Foreign Minister the day after in Tokyo. I have also asked to visit New Delhi to consult the Indian Foreign Minister. I will go in my capacity as Singapore Foreign Minister, in order that we can play a more effective role as the Chair of ASEAN. I believe that if we coordinate some of our actions, we can help create a more conducive environment for there to be national reconciliation in Myanmar. That will help, of course, the Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari.

     Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines):  Sir, Myanmar seems to be in a state of denial and is quite impervious to moral censure or economic sanctions.  Given that Myanmar has rebuffed ASEAN's approach of constructive engagement for over 10 years, how confident can the Minister be that we can wield any moral influence over Myanmar?  And given that we expect Myanmar to sign the ASEAN Charter, would it not tarnish our image and credibility as a grouping?  Should we not ask Myanmar to stay home until they can shape up and come to Singapore to sign the ASEAN Charter?

     Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo:  Mr Speaker, Sir, Ms Irene Ng has expressed views that are shared by some Members in this Chamber. There are only bad alternatives. Let us say we decide to ostracise Myanmar, to dis-invite them, if we could, from the Summit. Then what happens? Then Myanmar, on its own, will be an isolated buffer state sandwiched between China and India, each of which eyes the other very carefully. India is very concerned to maintain its links with Myanmar because it sees China having influence over Myanmar. And if there is civil strife there, I believe both would be forced to take bets in their own self defence. If Myanmar is divided, and there is external interference by the big powers, then we'll be dragged in. It won't be in our interest for Myanmar to be balkanised. It cannot be. So we decided to bite our tongue to keep Myanmar in the family because it serves our long-term strategic self interest. But of course, if Myanmar decides on its own to claim that what happens in the country is its domestic affairs, and if they are not prepared to accept the fact that we have every intention in ASEAN to discuss their domestic affairs at our meetings, they can object to this and decide not to attend the meetings. Then we will have to respect their wish. But I do not believe that that would happen because they do know that it is better for them to remain in ASEAN and to stay in the family, than to be left alone outside.

     Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar):  Mr Speaker, Sir, Minister Mentor has said that an unstable Myanmar is a timebomb for South East Asia.  Could the Minister elaborate on it?  Are ASEAN countries in agreement with this view?  Should such scenario be discussed with ASEAN countries so that all can be better prepared to mitigate such an eventuality?

     Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo:  It is true that Myanmar is a ticking time bomb. For the time being, because of the way the government has been able to arrest 'trouble-makers' and intimidate the population, there is an apparent return to normalcy. So the curfew has been withdrawn, some people have been released. But how long can this position remain? There is a lot of anger in Myanmar and among the Myanmar people in Singapore - there are tens of thousands of them here. I met some of them two days ago at the Burmese temple here.  There is great frustration. They readily admitted that the recent crackdown was much less than what had happened in 1988, which was a really brutal crackdown. But that was the period before the Internet and handphone cameras, and today whatever happens will be quickly spread worldwide. And the Myanmar diaspora is over 2 million, not only in neighbouring countries, but also in Europe, Australia and America. So there is no way the current situation can go on like this for a long time. There has to be a genuine dialogue. It cannot be a case where the leaders just go through the motion so that things will calm down, and then back to status quo ante. I just had a conversation with Thai Foreign Minister Nitya Pibulsonggram three days ago. We were exchanging views and he said, "There can be no going back to status quo ante ". I told him, "I fully agree with you and that must be ASEAN's position". I believe that the leaders, when they meet in Singapore, will take that position. 

     Mr Siew Kum Hong:  Sir, I have two supplementary questions.  First, President George Bush of the US has categorically stated that business as usual is unacceptable.  Does the Minister agree and, if so, what is the Government doing that goes beyond "business as usual"?  Has the Government considered measures, short of general sanctions, that target the Generals specifically?  My second question is this. The Minister has stated that ASEAN's economic leverage over Myanmar is limited.  But, as I understand it, Thailand and Singapore are the second and third largest investors in Myanmar.  I would like to ask the Minister why he considers ASEAN's economic leverage to be limited. 

     Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo:  Mr Speaker, Sir, ASEAN's limited economic leverage is a matter of fact.  Statistics bear out and for as long as China and India keep the back gate and the side gate open, there is very little which a trade embargo can do. It is a resource-rich country.  It has got rice, it has got fish, it has got minerals aplenty, it has got oil and gas.  And it is already a country predisposed towards isolationism and does not need very much encouragement in that direction. China supplies it consumer products.  Can we take the Western position?  The position of America and Europe.  It sounds tempting and perhaps emotionally we feel justified to do so.  But if we do so, and China and India maintain their present policies the result will be what I said earlier, Myanmar de facto no longer being a part of ASEAN and becoming a buffer state in between China and India, tempting both to interfere in its domestic politics.  And one day, giving us more trouble because of this. So for these reasons, it would be better if we take our own position.  The Chinese do not want to take an open position because they cling on to a principle of non-interference because they do not want other countries to interfere in their domestic affairs. Therefore they cannot be seen to be interfering in other people's domestic affairs and they will never want to say that they are. To a certain extent, we have to give them cover.  If they do things because ASEAN wants them to do certain things, they can say that, no, we are not interfering because we are doing it at ASEAN's request.  The Japanese have been an important aid giver to Myanmar.  You know when the Japanese journalist was killed, I met Foreign Minister Koumura the day after.  They were very affected.  Later on when I saw the news reporting of the funeral, the Buddhist monks in Japan wept. Buddhist monks are not supposed to weep at funerals, but they felt it so strongly. I told Foreign Minister Koumura you cannot take the Western position, you have to do something because not doing anything would be wrong.  So they have cut off some aid but they will keep closer to the ASEAN position. Each country must respond according to its own interests and its own value system. For their own domestic politics, the US and Europe have got to take the positions that they are taking.  That is fine. We cannot take the US position.  We cannot take the European position.  Neither can we take the Chinese or Indian position.  We take our own position and so long as we loosely coordinate, I think we can improve the chances of there being national conciliation.  To be sure we are not optimistic.  It is going to be difficult. It is going to be troubled, but what is the alternative? The alternative would be much worse.  And we may yet to come to that, but for now this is our best bet.  It is the only game in town for the time being and we have to go along with it.

    Mr Speaker:  Ms Sylvia Lim.  Last question.

     Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member):  Mr Speaker, Sir, what concerns me is to what extent Singapore might be implicated in somehow propping up the military authorities in Myanmar in their oppressive tactics.  The reason I ask this is that there have been some press reports recently as well as in the past.  Just to cite one example, a Melbourne newspaper called The Age last month came out with an article called "Web of cash, power and cronies" which reiterated in fact some contents from an earlier article in Jane's Intelligence Review in 1998.  The content of those articles was basically to say that Singapore had in fact been much involved in shipping ammunition and other military equipment to Myanmar and had also been instrumental in helping to set up a cyber centre where intelligence equipment was subsequently used to monitor activists.  So I would like to ask the Minister to comment on these articles, whether there had been some activities as such in the past and to what extent it has minimised now.  Such clarity I think would be very important for us.

     Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo:  On the question of military sales, I have given a full answer earlier.  It has been insubstantial.  We have always made sure they were items which could not be used against civilians and there has been no sales in recent years. I should not go on beyond that because it is our established policy not to divulge details of military sales.  We have replied to the Australian newspaper. As for the reports about helping them establish a listening facility to monitor civilian dissidents, there is no truth in that.  We have made repeated clarifications to Australian newspapers.  They have printed our replies, but somehow the journalists who wrote subsequently ignored those replies we have made.  As for their accusations about us being involved in drug money-laundering, it goes back quite a long time to Dr Chee Soon Juan.  We have clarified again and again but they keep being recycled and that article ythe Member has referred to contains some of that recycled hash.  

     Mr Low Thia Khiang rose ---

     Mr Speaker:  No, I have already said that that was the last question, Mr Low.  Next Question.  Ms Eunice Olsen.

      11.  Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry deployed its officers to film students organising on-campus activities highlighting the plight of the people in Myanmar; and (b) whether such activities constitute a security threat.

     12.  Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Police had asked persons wearing T-shirts protesting against the Myanmar regime to take them off and, if so, what was the rationale for doing so.

     The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs):  Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take Question Nos. 11 and 12 together, please?

     Mr Speaker:  Yes.

     Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee:  Sir, these incidents took place at a time when the Myanmese here were reacting to events back in Myanmar, where the situation was very tense.  Emotions were running high amongst the Myanmese community living here at what they perceived as injustice being done to their countrymen back home.  Indeed, at the time when these incidents occurred, the situation in Myanmar was deteriorating rapidly.  Anticipating that this would further fuel the strong sentiments already gripping the emotions of Myanmese nationals here in Singapore, Police decided to take extra precautions to prevent any breaches of law and order.

     It was in this context that Police received information that Myanmese nationals might assemble to stage a protest and deployed officers to patrol areas where Myanmese nationals normally congregated.  This included the Peninsula Plaza where the incidents relating to the T-shirts took place in the afternoon of 29th September along Coleman Street.

     Sir, there were two instances when Police officers spotted persons wearing T-shirts with words relating to the Myanmar situation.  One T-shirt had the message 'Stop the bloodshed in Myanmar' printed on the front and back.  The other T-shirt had the words 'Help Burma' on the front and 'Help Myanmar' on the back.  They wanted to find out more about the intentions of these persons, in particular, if they were members of an organised group which might cause trouble and create a public order situation.  Hence, the Police requested that they proceed to a police station to be interviewed.  Police did not engage them in a prolonged interview on the spot as this might attract undue attention and precipitate an incident.  Police also advised that they consider taking off their T-shirts, as Police's assessment was that the messages on the T-shirts might stir strong emotions on the part of others who read it, thus leading to a public order situation. 

     I agree that the Police were perhaps being overly-cautious but let me give the assurance that the officers did not intend to embarrass or offend the persons wearing the T-shirts.  Looking back, their actions were probably an over-reaction.  But given the tense situation prevailing then, and the possibility of trouble-makers exploiting the situation at that particular location which is known as a congregating point for Myanmese, the Police officers' assessment, at that time, that the T-shirt with its emotive words could lead to trouble can be understood and was not totally unjustified.  This is because dynamics of group behaviour is often not entirely rational and can be stirred by emotive slogans and exploited by others for their own cause.

     Sir, I take this opportunity to advise those who seek to express their sentiments on the Myanmar situation to do so in a lawful manner.
  
     As for the incident referred to by Ms Olsen, that occurred at a vigil organised by students at the Singapore Management University (SMU) on 4th October this year in support of the plight of the people in Myanmar.  As explained earlier, given the strong sentiments and the volatile Myanmese situation at the time, Police acted in good faith and assessed that it was necessary to monitor seemingly minor but related events to ensure that such activities did not escalate into public order situations.  When the Police do this, its officers would typically be equipped with video cameras for the purpose of recording, primarily to aid investigations later should the situation degenerate and persons present commit offences. 

     Sir, here again let me give the assurance that such videotaping is not meant to intimidate persons attending the event, but rather to aid investigation should offences be committed.  Indeed, these recordings will assist the Police if offences are committed to investigate and discern between those who violate the law and the rest who are innocent of any wrong-doing. 

     Mr Siew Kum Hong:  Sir, I have three supplementary questions.  I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State:

     (1)  How many persons were wearing the T-shirts in question?

     (2)  What was the power under which the Police had exercised their right to ask the persons wearing the T-shirts to return to the police station for an interview?

     (3)  Has the Police ever encountered a situation where the wearing of T-shirts as a form of protest had resulted in law-and-order issues and, if so, what sort of issues were they?

     Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee:  Sir, let me take the third question first. 

     Sir, the context is important.  Like I have explained, the situation was tense on that weekend.  It was a Saturday, and the situation was boiling over in Myanmar and also in terms of the Myanmese community in Singapore.  We knew that they were gathering at different points.  Ordinarily, Police would not ask people to take off their T-shirts.  But in that context, in that situation, the Police officers involved thought that was the right thing to do.  But having said this, let me say that it was only this team of officers who did it.  It was a judgment that they made.  Like I have said, they probably over-reacted, because there were also other officers who met other Myanmese nationals who were wearing T-shirts who did not ask them to take off their T-shirts. 

     The other question is what powers they had to ask them to go back to the station.  Well, that was a request.  In fact, if the Myanmese nationals had said they did not want to go back, then the Police would not have taken them back.  But in the circumstances, because the Police wanted to find out their intentions, if they had interviewed them on the spot, that may be worse because that may attract attention and cause emotions to run, they asked, "Can you follow me back to the station?"  One of them followed them back, and the other one went later on to the police station.

     Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen (Nominated Member):  Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State.  I would like to ask whether it serves Singapore's interests as a nation to subject its youths and their spontaneous display of solidarity with their neighbours in Myanmar to such monitoring by the Ministry's officers and whether such actions by his Ministry send a detrimental signal to our youths and damage the values that we are trying to inculcate in our youths and impair their interests in the world, the region and the country.

     Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee:  Sir, I think it is in order for Singaporeans to express their concerns in legal ways, as many have done over that period.  But, again, like I have said, the context is important, ie, the situation prevailing in Singapore then.  So Police officers went to the spot, videotaped the event, and the reason I have explained why, ie, not to intimidate the students but should there be subsequent offences, then we can discern the wrongdoer from those who are not.  Indeed, Sir, police forces all over the world now use video recorders.  Some are static, some are mobile.  In fact, in London, we hear of the Bobbies now having video-recorders on their helmets.  So it is not something extraordinary.  No ill intentions are meant.  This is just to aid Police in investigations and, basically, in fact, to help innocent parties.  The basic message, therefore, is that if you are innocent and are not out to break the law, there should be no fear.

     13.  Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport (a) including the current transport fare revision, how much has the public transport fare increased over the last five years; (b) on which socio-economic group relative to real wage increase over the last five years does this increase have the greatest impact; and (c) what is the Ministry doing to mitigate the impact.

     The Minister for Transport (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat):  Mr Speaker, Sir, our approach is to allow small and regular public transport fare adjustments to help cover operating cost increases and to fund investments such as new buses and train upgrades.  The fare adjustment mechanism protects the public by capping the allowable fare increase instead of letting the public transport operators (PTOs) charge what the market can bear, and by requiring the PTOs to share productivity gains with commuters.  Fares have increased by 5.3% over the last five years, including this year's fare increase.  This works out to be an increase of about 1% per year, which lags average wage increases of 3% per year between 2002 and 2006.

     To ensure that fares remain affordable to the majority of commuters, the Public Transport Council (PTC) tracks the proportion of income that an average commuting household spends on public transport. Based on surveys, this corresponds to the second quintile (which is the 21st to 40th percentile) household income group.  This proportion has been falling from 7.0% in 2003 to 6.5% in 2006.  So fares have remained affordable for the general public.  
 
     However,

we recognise that low-income households, ie, those in the bottom 20%, may need additional help to cope with transport fare increases.  As such, between 2005 and 2007 when fares were raised, the Government, the public transport operators as well as community organisations contributed some $8.6 million in the form of public transport vouchers for such households.  This year, the Government has also committed $10 million to a Public Transport Fund to be given out over three years to provide additional help to lower-income households.  

      To help low-income families cope with increases in public transport fares as well as deal with larger cost of living concerns, over the past six years, the Government has provided assistance of more than $17,500 to a typical low-income household. This comes from the various assistance schemes such as the Progress Package, New Singapore Shares, Economic Restructuring Shares, CPF Top-Ups, rebates on utilities, rentals, service and conservancy charges and the GST Offset Package.  Low-income households and workers will also be receiving more help under the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme. 

    Let me assure the Member that the Government will closely monitor the affordability of public transport fares of needy households and provide targeted help to those who need it most.

      Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang):   I thank the Minister for the comprehensive answer.  With the escalating oil price and the likelihood that it will remain high, how will the high oil price impact the public transport sector and the cost to the people?  And what are the measures that the Ministry of Transport is taking to mitigate this particular impact?  Will the Ministry consider liberalisation of the public transport sector to a more competitive one, instead of the current duopoly?  And, lastly, can the Minister give us some updates on the current status of the land transport review, if possible?

     Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat:  The way the review takes place when it comes to public transport fares, we do not have a direct feed through of the operators' costs.  The Member is asking what happens if the oil price has gone up, fuel costs have increased and is there a direct feed through?  No, it does not happen that way.  We use macro structural factors.  So, if you look at the formula, the formula basically takes the CPI and the wage index and then you subtract off the productivity gains. This is to address the concern the Member has - that if there is a direct flow through, the fare will go up.  So this is why we say that there is a cap to prevent that.

   On the Member's second question on the liberalisation of public transport sector, as part of the land transport review, these are some of the suggestions that have been put forth and it is something that the Ministry will consider. We hope to complete the review by the end of this year and by early next year, we will make announcements on what are some of the key initiatives of the land transport review.

     14.  Dr Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Transport (a) if there are plans to commence operations at the Woodleigh MRT station soon; and (b) whether the figures for daily ridership have been reviewed lately.

     Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat:  The Woodleigh Station was not opened together with the rest of the North East Line (NEL) stations in 2003 because of the lack of residential developments in the station's immediate vicinity.  To-date, there are still limited developments surrounding the area.

     The LTA is constantly monitoring the pace of developments in the areas surrounding the stations which would in turn affect the ridership for the station.  At the same time, the LTA is also working closely with the land use agencies to see if developments in the area can be accelerated.

     15.  Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for National Development (a) how much have new HDB flat prices increased over the last five years; (b) whether the current construction boom will result in further escalation of new HDB flat prices; and (c) whether the Ministry is reviewing the $8,000 household income limit for the purchase of new HDB flats.

     The Minister for National Development (Mr Mah Bow Tan):  Mr Speaker, Sir, property prices in Singapore have increased in recent years, supported by strong economic fundamentals.  Prices of private residential property have risen by 23% over the last five years, while HDB resale flat prices have increased by 11% also over the last five years since 2002.  In line with the increase in resale flat prices, new flat prices are on average about 8% higher today, compared to 2002. 

      Notwithstanding the price changes, new HDB flats continue to be sold at subsidised prices.  Just as first-time flat buyers of HDB resale flats enjoy a housing grant of $30,000 or $40,000, depending on whether they live near to their families, those who buy new flats from HDB also enjoy a discount off the equivalent market price.  The difference between what a buyer pays for his new flat and what it is actually worth in the market is the subsidy provided by HDB to him. 

     As the selling prices of new HDB flats are pegged to resale prices and not based on costs, the increased activity in the construction industry recently will not directly impact on the prices of new HDB flats.

     Sir, the Government remains committed to making home ownership affordable to the vast majority of citizen households, especially first-timers and low-income families.  Despite the increase in new flat prices, new HDB flats are still affordable.  On average, new flat buyers today use about 20% of their monthly household income to service their mortgage loan.  This is below the normally accepted ratio of about 30%-40%.  More than 70% of new flat buyers are able to service their housing loans entirely with their CPF contributions.

     The MP has also asked if HDB will be reviewing the household income ceiling of $8,000 for the purchase of subsidised new flats.  

     At the current $8,000 income ceiling, about eight in 10 Singaporean families are eligible to buy subsidised public housing.  Higher income households exceeding the income ceiling have many other housing options, including the purchase of resale HDB flats. 

      First-timer families with household incomes of up to $10,000 can also consider buying new Executive Condominium (EC) units with a housing grant of $30,000.  As the vast majority of Singaporean families qualify for subsidised public housing under the current rules, HDB has no plans to raise the income ceiling.  However, HDB recognises that there may be cases deserving special consideration and will exercise flexibility accordingly. 

      HDB will continue to monitor and review its policy on income ceiling, to ensure that the majority of citizen families can continue to enjoy subsidised public housing.

     Er Lee Bee Wah (Ang Mo Kio):  Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister.  In relation to the recent increase in the construction cost, will there be a slowdown in the rate of the Lift Upgrading Programme?  The other question is this. Recently, I was asked by the consultant to cut down on the provision because the tender returns exceeded the budget.  I would like to ask the Minister whether there will be an additional fund provided, rather than to cut down on the provision, as we have already made known to the residents.

     Mr Mah Bow Tan:  Sir, on the Lift Upgrading Programme, the Government has, as she knows, committed to completing the Lift Upgrading Programme for all eligible flats in Singapore by 2014.  At the moment, the programme is on track.  Yes, some of the costs have gone up, but I do not envisage that we will need to go past this target date of 2014 that we have committed to.

    As for tender prices, I think it is prudent for us, when the tender prices exceed the budget, to go back to the drawing board and see in what way we can cut down on the scope of works.  This is not unusual. We do this all the time.  But, of course, where the scope of work cannot be pruned or cut down and the budget is still exceeded, then, obviously, we will have to look into making further budget provisions.  But I think it would be wise and prudent of us to rework the project to look at ways in which we can save, rather than to automatically accept whatever tender comes up in the tender process.

     Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh):  Sir, the Minister has mentioned that in the last five years, HDB prices have gone up by 11%.  I just wanted to know whether the measurement is based on the reported resale price or the price which buyers normally buy.  There is always an above-valuation value. Are those values captured?  Recently, I also heard that the prices above valuation have gone up quite significantly.  Is this a common practice or is this considered as normal?

     Mr Mah Bow Tan: The 11% figure that I cited, which is the increase in HDB resale flat prices from 2002 to 2007, yes, that is a reflection of the total price which includes the cash over valuation price.  So, in other words, it is the actual transacted price and not the valuation price.

    The cash over valuation, or what is called the CoV in the market, is not always positive.  In fact, in the earlier years, in 2002 and even before that, the CoV was actually negative.  Buyers were not prepared to pay the valuation price.  They were only going to pay a price below valuation.  But, today, it is a seller's market.  So, the cash over valuation has turned positive. It is part and parcel of the market process. Valuations are done on a general basis by a panel of valuers.  Sometimes, depending on the market situation and depending on the individual preference of buyers, they may be prepared to pay a lot more than the valuation. Hence, you have the phenomenon of a very positive cash over valuation situation today. The CoV actually goes up and down, depending on the state of the HDB resale property market.

     16.  Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many 2-room and 3-room flat owners who are 62 years old and above and who are first-time HDB flat buyers will be eligible for the lease buy-back scheme; and (b) whether his Ministry will consider allowing some flexibility in its implementation so that even those who are second-time buyers of such flats and who are facing hardship will be allowed to benefit from this scheme on a case-by-case basis. 

     Mr Mah Bow Tan:   Sir, based on preliminary estimates, about 25,000 elderly households living in 2-room and 3-room sold flats should be able to qualify for the lease buy-back scheme (LBS).  This number is likely to increase in the future as our population ages.

      One of the conditions of the lease buy-back scheme is that HDB lessees who have already enjoyed two housing subsidies will not be eligible.  Why is this so?  Because of the policy of limiting each household to two housing subsidies.  We need to ensure that housing subsidies are fairly and equitably distributed among eligible households.

     Mdm Halimah asked if HDB will exercise flexibility to extend the lease buy-back scheme to those who have taken two housing subsidies but who are now in financial hardship.  As with our other housing policies, HDB is prepared to be flexible in implementation to help those in genuine hardship.  But each appeal will have to be evaluated carefully and factors such as whether there is family support available will be taken into account.  This is to ensure that the subsidies we offer through the scheme are well targeted at those elderly households who need the additional help.

      Mdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong):  Two supplementary questions, Sir.  First, I would like to ask the Minister, of these 25,000 households, what percentage of the total number of 2- and 3-room flat owners does it constitute?  Second, I am happy that the Minister is prepared to consider flexibility on a case-by-case basis.  But, in a similar vein, I would like to ask the Minister whether he would also extend that same flexibility to first-time buyers of 4-room flats because the whole idea is actually to assist older Singaporeans to take care of their retirement needs and therefore we should extend it to the smaller flat owners.  For the 4-room flat owners, older Singaporeans will fall in that category of those needing assistance for their retirement and income.

      Mr Mah Bow Tan:  The 25,000 households that I referred to earlier constitute about 10% of the total number of 2- and 3-room households in Singapore. So it is not insubstantial.  If I may explain - what is the purpose of this lease buy-back scheme?  As we are preparing our population for retirement adequacy, we must recognise that there is a very major asset which many Singaporeans, if not most Singaporeans, own, and that is, their HDB flat. 

The value that is captured within this asset is very substantial. 

     We did a survey about two years ago and the Department of Statistics' figures showed that the average net value - that means after deducting loans and so on - of a typical HDB flat in Singapore was about $154,000.  That is overall.  For the lower income, it was quite significant too.  It was over $100,000.  So this value is there.

     The challenge for us is to see how we can monetise the flat - unlock the value that is in the flat in order to allow people to provide for their retirement.  But an equally important challenge is to see how we can continue to let them have a roof over their heads.  We have implemented several options over the last few years in order to help to monetise the flats.  For example, studio apartments.  These studio apartments are suitable for those who have got larger flats.  They can sell their large flats and downgrade to studio apartments.  They can then unlock the value of their large flats.  Even after they have paid for the studio apartment, they would have a surplus.  Those who do not wish to downgrade to a studio apartment, they can downgrade to a 2-room flat or even a 3-room flat if they are living in 4-room or 5-room flats.

     This latest proposal - the lease buyback scheme - is another option that we are offering.  But because it is such a new scheme, it is important for us to help people to understand this scheme.  It is a scheme which, I believe, will be very attractive.  We are making it attractive by adding another subsidy to the scheme.  But we want to make sure that people understand the scheme.  There will be some who will not understand.  There will be some who may be misled or whatever.  So let us roll out the scheme first to those households who really need the scheme.  By this, I mean the lower income households, those who are living in 3-room flats.
     Those who are living in larger flats - 4-room or 5-room flats - they have other options, the option of downgrading.  They also have another attractive option which is to rent out a room.  If a person has a 4-room flat, he can rent out one or even two of those rooms and earn quite a handsome income.  A room can now rent for about $450.  A person can rent two rooms for about $900-$1,000.  Or if he has an opportunity to move in with his children or relatives, he can rent out the whole flat, which again provides him with an additional income of something like $1,500 to $2,000.

     Sir, my answer to Mdm Halimah really is:  let us implement this scheme first for the 3-roomers.  Let us help people to understand the benefits of this scheme, make it popular and then, if necessary, we can start looking at larger flats.  Because the 3-room flat households actually have less options, especially the low income ones.  Let us concentrate on helping this group first and later on we can consider expanding it to other flat types as well.

     17.  Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong  asked the Minister for Manpower (a) if he can give an update on the pace of wage restructuring, including the percentage of companies which have moved away from a seniority-based wage system; and (b) what percentage of companies is required to do so before the Ministry will consider restoring the CPF cut for workers above 50 years old.

     18.  Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) of those companies that have moved away from a seniority-based wage system to a flexible wage system, what percentage of these companies do the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) constitute and what does this percentage translate into for the SMEs as a whole; (b) what percentage of the workforce is employed by SMEs and what percentage of the workforce in the SMEs will have to be moved to the non seniority-based wage system; and (c) what programmes are in place to help SMEs adopt flexible wage systems and what time duration is the Ministry working on.

     The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Mr Hawazi Daipi) (for the Minister for Manpower): Sir, may I take Question Nos. 17 and 18 together?

     Mr Speaker: Yes.

     Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, Ms Irene Ng and Ms Ho Geok Choo asked for an update on the pace of wage restructuring. The Tripartite Taskforce on Wage Restructuring had made three key recommendations to make wages more flexible and performance-based:

     (i) move away from seniority-based wage system and narrow the maximum-minimum salary ratio to an average of 1.5 or less;

     (ii)  build up the Monthly Variable Component; and

     (iii) implement variable bonus linked to Key Performance Indicators.

     Our data shows that as at December 2006, 83% of the private sector workforce worked for employers who had implemented at least one of the three measures.

     As at December 2006, 60% of the workers worked for firms that had narrowed or were narrowing the wage ratio to 1.5 or less, an improvement from 52% in June 2004. SMEs that employ more than 25 and less than 200 workers were under-represented in this group.  Although the SME workforce is about 41% of the total workforce in the private sector, SME workers who worked in firms that had narrowed or were narrowing the salary ratio comprise only 24% of the total workforce in the private sector.

     A similar pattern can be seen when looking at the level of adoption by firms.  62% of workers in large firms, compared to 58% of workers in SMEs, had narrowed or were narrowing the salary ratio.

     More effort is required to help SMEs understand how a flexible and performance-based wage system could be implemented. For example, the Ministry and the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in partnership with other employers' organisations, recently organised a Mandarin Seminar on Wage Restructuring specifically for SMEs.  An easy-to-read handbook was published in both English and Chinese and distributed to SMEs through various employers' organisations as a reference guide in implementing flexible wages.

     Ms Irene Ng asked about the restoration of CPF cut for workers above 50 years old.  Employers' CPF contributions are important in providing social security to Singaporean workers. However, this must be balanced with the impact on the overall employability of locals and the cost competitiveness of our economy.  These considerations underpin our calibration of CPF rates.

     These were also the reasons why in the 2003 CPF retuning exercise, the House agreed that the long-term target CPF contribution rate should be reduced from 40% to a range of between 30% and 36%, depending on economic performance and for workers not more than 50 years old, with the employer contribution varying between 10% and 16%.  To improve the employability of older workers, a further reduction was made for those aged 50 to 55 which was lowered over two years to range from 24% to 30%, with the employer contribution varying between 6% and 12%. There were no changes to the employer contribution rates for workers above 55 in 2003.

     In view of the buoyant economy and labour market, the employer CPF contribution rate was increased for all employees by 1.5% in July this year, except for older low wage workers above the age of 35 and earning up to $1,500.

     For older low wage workers, employers' CPF was instead reduced to further enhance their employability.  This reduction, however, will be more than made up for by the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS), starting in January 2008.  Workers above 45 years of age, earning between $500 and $1,000 inclusive, will receive $1,200 in total WIS, which translates to about 10%-20% increase in annual income.

     Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines):  Sir, given that we have a tight labour market with wages going up quite rapidly, is it not a good idea to divert some of the wage rise into CPF savings by restoring some of the cuts for those above 50 especially?  Besides helping our workers to save for their retirement, will this not also help to dampen inflation rate trends?

     Can I also ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware of a recent survey which found that middle aged and older workers in the past two years had found it easier to find jobs because of the stronger employment market?  For instance, in September 2006, 74% of retrenched degree holders aged 50 and above found re-employment in six months, up from 64% in September 2005.  Does it not show that the CPF cut for workers aged 50 and above, especially for the higher skilled, is not a key factor in keeping them employed?

     Mr Speaker:  Ms Ng, are you making a speech or are you asking a question?

      Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong:  Does it not show that the CPF cut for workers aged 50 and above, especially for the higher skilled, is not a key factor in keeping them employed in good times? 

     Mr Speaker:  Do you have a question, Mr Hawazi?

     Mr Hawazi Daipi:  Yes, Sir.  I wanted to ask what was her question.

     Mr Speaker:   Mr Hawazi asked what is your question, Ms Ng?

     Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong:  Sir, we are all for re-employment for older workers.  But I am arguing that, given the surveys done, it shows that older workers find it easier to get employment.  Is it quite irrelevant for us to keep harping on cutting CPF for the older workers as a tool for them to get employed, especially with schemes like the Advantage Scheme and the flexible wage system coming in?

     Mr Hawazi Daipi:   Sir, all the measures that have been taken by MOM together with our stakeholders - the unions and employers' organisations - are meant to help workers who are likely to have more problems of getting jobs, and these include older workers and low-educated workers.  We must look at the long-term employability of these workers.  We can always be encouraged by the short-term buoyancy and employment rate of all our workers, including older workers, but we must take into consideration the long-term viability of their employment.  With that in mind, we decide very cautiously on the CPF rates, including the rate at which increases are made.

     Mdm Ho Geok Choo (West Coast):  Sir, three supplementary questions.  First, what are the reasons for the rather slow progress among the SMEs moving on to the non-seniority wage based system?  Second, what can the Government do to speed up this conversion?  Third, why is the CPF restoration for those above 50 years of age incumbent on the company and the employee being on the non-seniority wage system?

          Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, SMEs may be slow in subscribing to the flexible wage system, because they may not have the full information.  That is why MOM, together with the Chambers of Commerce and employer organisations, is working closely to reach out to them to explain through seminars and workshops on the workings of the flexible wage system - the three components that I briefed the House earlier.  More can be done, of course, to reach out to them, including detailed explanations on how they can implement the monthly variable component of the wage system.

     On CPF restoration for older workers, we have many ways to help older workers, including the WIS.  We should not look at just one component of the wage system.  We are looking at a comprehensive way of helping through income supplementation too.

     19.  Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what plans does the Government have in terms of other measures to establish a secure retirement other than changes made to the CPF scheme; (b) whether the Government has considered the taking up of annuity insurance to be taken up at the commencement of work just like the CPF; and (c) if he can provide updates on modifications, if any, to be made to the proposed annuity scheme.

     The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Gan Kim Yong) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans can achieve retirement adequacy by remaining employable, saving enough for their own needs and using their CPF funds prudently. With the recently announced interest rate changes, our projections indicate that a 20th income percentile CPF member, starting work at age 20 at an income of $1,200, can afford to buy a 3-room flat and still meet the Minimum Sum with property pledge when he reaches age 55.

     We have also recently made changes so that members who are better off can help other family members. We have expanded the list of beneficiaries who can receive top-ups and increased the maximum sums allowed.

     The CPF Board will also step up its efforts to assist members to make better financial decisions for their retirement. The Board has been conducting outreach to members through annual roadshows, as well as online retirement planning tools.  It is reviewing other ways to reach out to members. To assist those who want to invest their funds for higher returns, sales and management charges for investment products under the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS) were recently capped so as to reduce cost for members. The CPF Board will continue to monitor the CPFIS to determine where improvements can be made.

     These measures complement other steps taken by other Ministries.  For example, the Ministry of Health has improved the MediShield and ElderShield schemes.  The Ministry of National Development has also announced the Lease Buyback scheme. When budget conditions permit, the Government has been making distributions to Singaporeans, and these are usually targeted at the older and less well-off segments of our population. Since 2001 and including the GST Offset package, special transfers from the Government have totalled $11.7 billion.

     The Member has also asked whether the Government has made any modifications to the National Longevity Insurance Scheme.  The Government has appointed a National Longevity Insurance Committee, chaired by Prof. Lim Pin, to study the options, and to recommend the optimal design for the scheme.  The Committee has already begun its work, and its recommendations should be ready within six months.    I am sure that in the course of their work, they will have the opportunity to consider the Member's suggestion for the insurance to be purchased earlier than age 55.

     Mdm Ho Geok Choo:  I would like to ask the Minister of State whether the Government is also engaging some actuarial experts to review the viability of the annuity scheme.

     Mr Gan Kim Yong:  Mr Speaker, Sir, the Committee, chaired by Prof. Lim Pin, will indeed consult actuarial experts to understand the insurance scheme better and to design a scheme that is suitable for Singaporeans.

     20.  Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Education in light of the sexual permissiveness of teens and the rising number of teenage abortions from 1,279 cases in 2005 to 1,391 cases in 2006, will the Ministry consider revising the "Abstinence-only" message in its sex education classes to include prevention of unintended pregnancies and contraception as well.

     The Minister of State for Education (Mr Gan Kim Yong) (for the Minister for Education):  Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Education (MOE) adopts a balanced approach to its Sexuality Education (SE) to help students appreciate the value of healthy relationships, understand the consequences of at-risk sexual behaviour and to equip them with the skills and knowledge to make responsible decisions. 

     Different emphases are applied to students of different age groups to suit their level of maturity and the challenges they face.  At primary level, for example, family values are emphasised so as to build a strong foundation.  At secondary and post-secondary levels, greater emphasis is placed on responsible decision-making, skills to manage relationship, use of contraception and preventive measures. In addition, for students who are at risk, we counsel them individually.

     MOE constantly reviews its Sexuality Education programmes to ensure that it remains relevant and effective, given the changing trends in society.  An example of a recent initiative is the Breaking Down Barriers (BDB) programme, a joint project between MOE and Health Promotion Board, introduced to  Secondary 3 students in schools. This programme covers topics such as STIs/HIV, the use of contraceptives and acquisition of skills such as assertiveness and responsible decision-making.  The take-up rate for this programme has been very encouraging, with about 80% of secondary schools either having implemented, or in the process of implementing it.  All secondary schools are expected to adopt the programme by mid-2008.

     Teenage pregnancy and abortion are complex issues. In addition to an effective and relevant sexuality education in our schools, stronger family support and community collaboration are equally crucial in addressing these issues.  We will continue to work with the various stakeholders on this.

     Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade):  I just want to ask the Minister of State whether he feels that the trend is likely to improve and, if not, what other measures can be introduced.  Out of the 1,391 cases of teenage abortions, I note that 19 of them were girls who were under 15 years old.  I am very concerned that this has to be tackled.  I know it is a difficult problem.  I understand this balanced approach.  But I think more needs to be done, and it may involve more than just the MOE in this case.

     Mr Gan Kim Yong:   Mr Speaker, I agree with the Member that this involves more than just MOE.  As I mentioned in my speech, we want to work with all the stakeholders - the community, the family, the parents - to address this issue in a holistic way. Within our schools, we also allow them to adopt a differentiated approach so that the schools are able to address the needs and the interest of the students more directly, reflecting the profile and the problems faced by the students.  So, we allow the principals to have some autonomy and flexibility in how the sexuality education programme is being conducted in our schools.

     21.  Mr Gautam Banerjee asked the Minister for Education given that the current and projected shortage of trained teachers is one of the reasons why international schools operating in Singapore are not able to expand to meet rising applications, whether the Ministry will consider setting up a second teacher training institution which will produce teachers with internationally recognised teaching qualifications. 

    Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, MOE engages the international schools on education and professional matters from time to time.  Based on their feedback, the international schools have been able to recruit international teachers with the requisite qualifications to meet their needs.  The feedback from some of them is that they generally have a good stream of applications for their teaching positions and they do not foresee a shortage of teachers in the next few years. 

     There is therefore no immediate need for the Government to set up a second teacher training institute.  However, if the Member is aware of any particular international school having specific difficulties in teacher recruitment, he can ask the school to approach my Ministry or the Ministry of Trade and Industry and we will explore ways to help them.

     22.  Mr Charles Chong asked the Minister for National Development (a) why did the Government adopt the two-envelope system instead of the usual 'price only' approach for the Beach Road tender; and (b) how were the tender proposals evaluated and what safeguards were there to ensure that the evaluation was fair and objective. 

      Mr Mah Bow Tan:  Mr Speaker, Sir, the Beach Road site offers a unique opportunity to realise a large scale, high-quality landmark development for our city centre.  The development promises to be a major element of the city skyline as it will be highly visible from Nicoll Highway, the Padang, War Memorial Park and Marina Bay.  At the same time, the site poses a number of design challenges due to the scale of the development, the unique context of the site, the need to integrate the development with the Esplanade MRT station, and the need to sensitively complement four conserved buildings.

     Hence, the Government has adopted a two-envelope tender approach for the Beach Road site to allow us to achieve a high-quality development that can add value to our city and, at the same time, achieve a competitive price.  The conventional "price only" tender approach is not able to achieve both these objectives.  Although it is possible to stipulate broad planning and urban design parameters under the "price only" tender approach, such guidelines cannot assure the quality of the development as a whole.

     The Government has used the two-envelope system twice prior to the tender for the Beach Road site - for the Urban Entertainment Centre site at Victoria Street in 2005, and the Collyer Quay site in 2006. Under this approach, tenderers are required to submit two envelopes at the time of tender submission - one containing the Concept Proposal and the other containing the Bid Price.  The Concept Proposals are evaluated first by a Concept Evaluation Committee (CEC), which comprises representatives from both the public and private sectors who have the relevant experience and knowledge regarding development projects as well as expertise in evaluating architecture and urban design concepts.

     Proposals that are deemed to be acceptable by the CEC then move on to the second stage of tender evaluation.  At the second stage, the price envelopes of only the short-listed tenderers are opened.  The site is then awarded to the tender with the highest bid among the short-listed tenderers, taking into consideration the Government's reserve price.  The price envelopes of the other tenders that are not short-listed are returned un-opened.

     In line with the vision for the Beach Road site, the evaluation criteria for the site focused on four key aspects: (i) appropriateness to context; (ii) quality of architecture; (iii) composition and placement of uses; and (iv) track record of the tenderer and the design team.  These criteria have also been used by the Government in evaluating the concept proposals for the two Integrated Resorts. 

     Various steps have been adopted for the Beach Road site tender to ensure that the criteria are transparent and well understood.  These include a public briefing to all prospective tenderers on the evaluation criteria early in the process to ensure that they are clear on the tender conditions before they work out the details of their proposals. 

     All the prospective tenderers have also been given an opportunity to present their proposals to the CEC after the close of tender. 

     The use of the two-envelope system, the assessment criteria, the composition of the CEC and the final award of the tender have been approved by a Ministerial Committee, comprising the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law, the Minister for Trade and Industry, the Minister for National Development and the Second Minister for Finance.

     We have and we will continue to apply the two-envelope system very selectively for Government Land Sales sites where we want to achieve very specific development outcomes.

     23.  Prof. Thio Li-ann asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) if he will provide an update on the presentation of Singapore's Third Report before the Committee overseeing the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) at its 39th session; (b) whether Singapore's performance of its treaty obligations has improved; and (c) whether any action will be taken on the recommendations the CEDAW Committee has made or reiterated.

     The Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon) (for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore presented its Third Periodic Report at the 39th Session of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women on 1st August 2007.  I am happy to report that the UN Committee has commended Singapore on the significant progress made by our women, especially in the areas of health and care for the elderly.

     The Committee welcomed the withdrawal of Singapore's reservation to Article 9, which requires States Parties to grant women equal rights with men to acquire, change or retain their nationality.  When Singapore first appeared before the Committee in 2001, a child born overseas could only acquire citizenship by descent if the father was Singaporean. With amendments to Article 122 of the Constitution, a child born overseas can now be a citizen by descent as long as the child's mother or father is a Singaporean.

     Other significant milestones included the removal of the one-third quota on the intake of female medical students to the National University of Singapore's medical faculty in 2003 and the equalisation of medical benefits for civil servants in 2005.  The gender wage gap has also been narrowing.  Women earn 86% of what their male counterparts earn, up from 83% a decade ago. Our younger and better-educated women are earning wages comparable to their male counterparts.   The Gender Empowerment Measure ranked us 18th out of 175 countries, which goes to show that our women have economic and political opportunities comparable with that of our men.

     The Committee was also pleased that an Inter-Ministry Committee on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) had been set up to monitor Singapore's implementation of the Convention.  The Committee cited it as an example which other countries could follow.

     While the Committee welcomed the significant progress made by women in Singapore, it made comments on a few issues.  These include the lack of explicit laws against gender discrimination, the application of Syariah law in matters relating to family and inheritance for the Muslim community, the level of women's participation in politics, the trafficking of women, the protection of foreign domestic workers and foreign wives. The Committee also urged Singapore to withdraw our four remaining reservations to the Convention, namely, Articles 2, 16, 11 and 29, and to consider acceding to the Optional Protocol.  

     MCYS has taken note of these comments.  The present reservations on Articles 2 and 16 are necessary to protect the rights of our indigenous population in our multi-cultural society.  Our Inter-Ministry Committee on CEDAW will continue to review our reservations and the specific issues raised by the UN CEDAW Committee.

     Singapore's dialogue with the UN Committee was a valuable learning experience.  Women in Singapore have come a long way but there is room for improvement and more can be done to raise the status of women.

     We will continue to work with the Women's NGOs such as the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations, the National Trades Union Congress Women's Committee and the People's Association Women Integration Network (WIN) Council to raise awareness of CEDAW and gather feedback on the aspirations of women in Singapore. These apex organisations represent more than 90% of women's groups and are our valuable partners in the promotion of the status and well-being of women.

3.00 pm

     Mr Speaker:  Order.  End of Question time.

     [Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 23, 25, 29 and 33-34 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*.  Question Nos. 24, 26-28, 30-32 and 35-38 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 23rd October 2007.]

When the Police officer approaches and orders him to stop, the person runs towards a crowd.  The Police officer exercising judgement in the circumstances decides that the suspect has the bomb and shoots the suspect.

     Sir, this scenario seems similar to a fatal shooting which occurred in London at Stockwell tube station in July 2005.  There, the Police mistook a Jamaican student for a suicide bomber and shot him at least five times in the head.  According to some versions, he was seen running away.  Despite intelligence, the Police still found an incorrect match between the profile and the subject they shot.  Transplanting that to the scenario here, the Police can tell you that many people run from them, not just suspected terrorists, people who have committed minor offences, overstayers, foreign workers afraid of the law or even the mentally unstable may do so.  Reading the illustration, I would worry if this indicates a "shoot to kill" policy especially since we do not know how specific the profile given to the Police is.  Will certain demographic stereotypes be more vulnerable to being mistakenly killed?  MHA has said that in any court case, the judge will still need to decide if the shooting was justified.  But this illustration is supposed to give our security officers and, I quote, "greater operational confidence to take necessary actions" which, read in another way, may be a signal that if one has not much information or when in doubt, one should shoot.  May I ask the Senior Minister of State whether the intention is to entrench such a "shoot to kill" policy and what safeguards there are to prevent mistaken shootings?

     Next, Sir, I move on to the point on the extortion law. Sir, this relates to amendments to section 383 of the Code which, in my view, completely change the nature of the crime of extortion.  For many decades, extortion referred to someone threatening to do something illegal and demanding money in order not to carry out the threat, for example, "Pay me $10,000 or I will burn your house."  Burning the house is something illegal.  By clause 73 of the Bill, section 383 is to be amended to cover situations where the threatened action is legal.  A new illustration C is a scenario where a Police officer threatens to report someone who has actually committed an offence.  The Police officer in that scenario demands money not to report the matter. 

    Sir, in my view, the amendment clearly confuses extortion with corruption.  There have in fact been court cases such as PP v Chua Boon Teck where it was ruled that Police officers demanding money so as not to exercise lawful powers of arrest are not guilty of extortion, but are guilty of corruption.  I do not know the rationale for merging the two concepts which, in my view, should be distinct.

     Sir, next, I would like to say a few words on the Petition presented by the Nominated Member on section 377A.  Sir, the Workers' Party leadership, several months ago, discussed extensively the issue of whether section 377A should be retained or repealed.  After much deliberation, we were unable to arrive at a consensus that it should be repealed and, as such, we would not be calling for its abolition.

     Sir, my last point relates to why the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee.  A Bill of this nature which introduces significant amendments to our main criminal legislation should be referred to a Select Committee.  Sir, a Select Committee comprising Members familiar with the administration of criminal justice and social affairs should do a comprehensive review of the criminal law.  They should scrutinise each clause to see if each change is justifiable and what else should be changed.  MPs should receive expert opinions from legally-trained persons on whether the drafting or wording of the provisions requires finetuning.  The Committee should also revisit court decisions interpreting certain important provisions in order to clarify the intent of those provisions and make amendments, where necessary. 

     Although there has been a round of public consultation before the First Reading, the weakness of that process is that the feedback given by the public is not a matter of public record and will not be accessible.  Also, views submitted in the public consultations are filtered by civil servants.  Parliament, as the law- making body, should allow MPs or a selected group of them to have direct access to representations by people on very important legislation such as this.  There may also be groups from the public who would like their concerns recorded in an official parliamentary report of the Select Committee, for example, those concerned with spousal violence or sexual orientation.  Recording such input in an official document is a testament to the vibrancy of our public discourse and participation.

     Sir, the Penal Code is our main criminal law and expression of society's barometer of what is criminal and what is not, the relative seriousness of offences and how citizens are to be punished.  I strongly urge the Government to put this Bill to a Select Committee.

What will foreigners think if we retain 377A? Depends on which foreigner you ask. Many would applaud us! Such issues divide other societies as well! A group of Canadians were grieved enough to issue an online apology to the world "for harm done through Canada's legalisation of homosexual marriage", urging us not to repeat their mistakes.  These debates are not closed locally or globally.  Singapore is an independent state, we can decide our own laws; we have no need of foreign or neo-colonial moral imperialism in matters of fundamental morality.

     Sir, there are no constitutional objections to retaining 377A while de-criminalising heterosexual oral and anal sex. Three legal points are worth making.

     First, there is no constitutional right to homosexual sodomy. It is not a facet of personal liberty under Article 9. Nor is there a human right to homosexual sodomy though some like to slip this in under the umbrella of "privacy."  Human rights are universal, like prohibitions against genocide. Demands for "homosexual rights" are the political claims of a narrow interest group masquerading as legal entitlements. Homosexual activists often try to infiltrate and hijack human rights initiatives to serve their political agenda, discrediting an otherwise noble cause to protect the weak and poor. You cannot make a human wrong a human right.

     Second, while homosexuals are a numerical minority as a social fact, there is at law no such thing as "sexual minorities". Activists have coined this term to draw a beguiling but fallacious association between homosexuals and legally recognised minorities like racial groups. Race is a fixed trait. It remains controversial whether homosexual orientation is genetic or environmental, perhaps both. There are no ex-Blacks but there are ex-gays. The analogy between race and sexual orientation or preferred sexual preferences, is false. Activists repeat the slogan "sexual minority" ad nausem as a deceptive political ploy to get sympathy from people who don't think through issues carefully. Repetition does not cure fallacy.

     Science has become so politicised that the issue of whether gays are "born that way" depends on which scientist you ask. You cannot base sound public philosophy on poor politicised pseudo "science".

    Homosexuality is a gender identity disorder; there are numerous examples of former homosexuals successfully dealing with this.  They claim a right of sexual reorientation. Just this year, two high profile US activists left the homosexual lifestyle, the publisher of Venus, a lesbian magazine, and an editor of Young Gay America. Their stories are available online. An article by an ex-gay in the New Statesmen this July identified the roots of his emotional hurts, like a distant father, overbearing mother and sexual abuse by a family friend; after working through his pain, his unwanted same-sex attractions left. While difficult, change is possible and a compassionate society would help those wanting to fulfill their heterosexual potential. There is hope.

     Singapore law only recognises racial and religious minorities. Special protection is reserved for the poor and disadvantaged; the average homosexual person in Singapore is both well educated, with higher income, that is why upscale condo developers target them! Homosexuals do not deserve special rights, just the rights we all have.

     "Sexual minorities" and "sexual orientation" are vague terms covering anything from homosexuality, bestiality, incest, paedophilia.  Do all these minority sexual practices merit protection?

     Third, 377A does not breach the Article 12 guarantee of equality. While all human persons are of equal worth, not all human behaviour is equally worthy. We separate the actor from the act. In criminalising acts, we consider their wrongfulness, the harmfulness and consequences on society.

    Parliament has the power to classify; this involves a choice, like distinguishing murder and manslaughter. Classifications which satisfy the constitutional test of validity are called "differentiation"; only invalid classifications are called "discrimination". Criminalising same-sex sodomy but not opposite-sex sodomy is valid "differentiation".  377A does not target any specific actor; it would cover a heterosexual male experimenting with male sodomy.

      Valid classifications must have a clear basis and be rationally related to a legitimate purpose. In serving public health and public morality, 377A passes constitutional muster with flying colours.

     Sir, public health and safety is a legitimate purpose served by the 377A ban on homosexual anal and oral sex. Both these practices are efficient methods of transmitting sexual diseases and AIDs/HIV which are public health problems. These are not victimless crimes as the whole community has to foot the costs of these diseases.

     Anal-penetrative sex is inherently damaging to the body and a misuse of organs, like shoving a straw up your nose to drink. The anus is designed to expel waste; when something is forcibly inserted into it, the muscles contract and cause tearing; fecal waste, viruses carried by sperm and blood thus congregate, with adverse health implications like "gay bowel syndrome", anal cancer. "Acts of gross indecency" under 377A also covers unhygienic practices like "rimming" where the mouth comes into contact with the anus. Consent to harmful acts is no defence, otherwise, our strong anti-drug laws must fall as it cannot co-exist with letting in recreational drugs as a matter of personal lifestyle choice.

    Opposite-sex sodomy is harmful, but medical studies indicate that same-sex sodomy carries a higher price tag for society because of higher promiscuity and frequency levels. The New York Times   reported that even informed homosexuals return to unsafe practices like bare-backing and bug-chasing after a health crisis wanes. A British Study showed that the legalisation of homosexual sodomy correlated with an upsurge of STDs among gays. Common sense tells us that with more acceptance, any form of consensual sexual behaviour increases. Sodomy laws have some deterrent effect.  

     It is rational for the state to target the most acute aspect of a problem. The legal issue is not whether the state should be concerned with heterosexual sodomy but it is reasonable to believe same-sex sodomy poses a distinct problem. Medical literature indicates that gays have disproportionately higher STD rates, which puts them in a different category from the general public, warranting different treatment. 

     The onus rests on opponents of 377A to negate every conceivable basis for treating homosexual and heterosexual sodomy differently. They cannot, because classifications do not need to be perfect and can be under-inclusive; valid classifications only need to 'go some way' to serve the legislative goal, which 377A clearly does.

     Sir, the power to legislate morality is not limited to preventing demonstrable harm. The Penal Code now criminalises the wounding of both religious and racial feelings.  377A serves public morality; the argument from community reminds us we share a way of life which gives legal expression to the moral repugnancy of homosexuality. Heterosexual sodomy, unlike homosexual sodomy, does not undermine the understanding of heterosexuality as the preferred social norm. To those who say that 377A penalises only gays, not lesbians, note there have been calls to criminalise lesbianism too.

     Public sexual morality must buttress strong families based on faithful union between man and wife, the best model for raising children. The state should not promote promiscuity nor condone sexual exploitation. New section 376D criminalises the organisation of child-sex tours. Bravo!

     The "argument from consent" says the State should keep out of the bedroom, to safeguard "sexual autonomy". While we cherish racial and religious diversity, sexual diversity is a different kettle of fish. Diversity is not licence for perversity. This radical liberal argument from consent is pernicious, a leftist philosophy based on radical individualism and radical egalitarianism. It is unworkable because every viable moral theory has limits to consent.

     Radical individualism would demand decriminalising consensual adult incest; but the Penal Code is not based on consent as section 376F reflects. The State has always retained an interest in regulating conduct in the bedroom - the issue is, which type?

     Radical egalitarianism applied to sexual morality says the State should not morally distinguish between types of consensual sex.  It exudes a false neutrality but actually sneaks in a substantive philosophy:  hedonism which breeds narcissism. This extols satisfying desire without restraint as a matter of autonomy. But some desires are undesirable, harming self and society.

     The argument from consent ultimately celebrates sexual libertine values, the fruit of which is sexual licentiousness, a culture of lust, which takes, rather than love, which gives. This social decline will provoke more headlines like a 2004 Her World article called: "Gay guy confesses: I slept with 100 men, one of them could be your hubby." What about the broken-hearted involved?  If you argue from consent, how can you condemn any form of sexual self-expression, no matter how selfish or hurtful?  No man is an island.  Ideas, embodied in laws, have consequences. Do not send the wrong message. Clearly, the issues raised in the Petition fall apart on rigorous analysis.

     Sir, Government policy is not to pro-actively enforce 377A. Some argue that just keeping this law on the books will erode the rule of law. I disagree. It is not turning a blind eye on the existence of homosexuals here; it is refusing to celebrate homosexuality while allowing gays to live quiet lives. This is prudent, as enforcing "bedroom" offences is difficult and such powers must be used judiciously.

     We have other hard-to-police laws which embody communal standards of decency, such as laws against nudity visible to the public eye, even if you are at home.  Law is a moral teacher and makes a moral statement; six years ago, Singapore symbolically blocked access to 100 Internet porn sites, as a "statement of our values."  We value our values, while remaining realistic.  A non pro-active policy does not mean 377A will never be enforced, who knows what another season may require? Policies can change.

     Sir, citizens are not just concerned with the rule of law but with the rule of good law. Laws which violate core moral values will alienate many and bring the system into disrepute. Indeed, many citizens see keeping 377A as evidence the Government is defending the right moral values, which lends legitimacy.

     Sir, it is true that not all moral wrongs, such as adultery, are criminalised; yet they retain their stigma. But adulterers know they have done wrong and do not lobby for toleration of adultery as a sexual- orientation right.

     Conversely, homosexual activists lobby hard for a radical sexual revolution, waging a liberal fundamentalist crusade against traditional morality. They adopt a step-by-step approach to hide how radical the agenda is. Liberals never ask: what happens next if you repeal 377A? Responsible legislators must see the big picture.

     Pro-gay academics identify five main steps in this agenda in foreign country studies. 

     Step 1: repeal laws criminalising homosexual sex. They consider this pivotal to advancing the homosexual agenda. Why? Without this, they cannot advance in the public sphere or push for government funding and support for special programmes, such as the New York Gay High School. Governments do not promote criminal activities. You need to change the criminal law before changing civil law.

     But decriminalising sodomy is only "bing shan yi jiao ", the tip of the iceberg, 12% of an ice mass.  We must see what lies beneath the water to avoid a Titanic fate.

     Step 2 is to equalise the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual sex; in some countries, this is as low as 13. Do we want to expose Secondary 1 boys to adult sexual predators? To be sexually creative?

     Step 3 is to prohibit discrimination based on "sexual orientation". But would this not include all sexual behaviour? "Sex before 8 or else it's too late", is the motto of the North American Man Boy Love Association. Should we judge paedophilia or be relativist and promote "anything goes" sexual experimentation?

     Sir, to protect homosexuals, some countries have criminalised not sodomy, but opposition to sodomy, making it a "hate crime" to criticise homosexuality. This violates freedom of speech and religion; will sacred texts that declare homosexuality morally-deviant, like the Bible and Quran, be criminalised? Social unrest beckons. Such assaults on constitutional liberties cannot be tolerated.

     Steps 4 and 5 relate to legalising same-sex marriage and child adoption rights. This subverts both marriage and family, which are institutions homosexuals seek to redefine beyond recognition. Will MOE then commission a book copying the American, "Heather has 2 mummies" called "Ah Beng has 2 daddies"? What if parents disagree with their kids studying homosexual propaganda?

     Is legalising same-sex marriage progressive? It is, if you want a genderless planet where "husband" and "wife" are considered discriminatory terms, to be replaced by "spouse".  We want to be able to say, Majulah Singapura, not Mundur Singapura!

     Repealing 377A will further batter the institution of "marriage" which we must bolster! This is because the arguments raised to challenge a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual sodomy, equally apply to challenge legal distinctions between lawful heterosexual marriage between man and wife and unlawful homosexual unions.

        To reinforce the moral foundations of a pro-family policy that permits only heterosexuals to marry, it is permissible to differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual sodomy.  To say that section 377A discriminates is effectively to say that marriage laws discriminate and are unconstitutional.
  

    Legalising sodomy would set a bad example; by signalling approval, it may change both attitude and conduct; coupled with sexual hedonism, it makes a mockery of strong family values.  Section 377A helps to protect against this harm.
 

     Academic supporters of the homosexual agenda, like my colleague Michael Hor, argued online that even if section 377A was not enforced, discriminatory policies against homosexuals could be built on the logic of its existence. But taking his logic, repealing section 377A would mean the Government would be less able to resist claims for homosexual marriage or for promoting homosexuality as a desirable lifestyle in schools, as this would be "discriminatory".  These foreign developments warn us that the advance of the homosexual agenda here is not remote.
 

     To slouch back to Sodom is to return to the Bad Old Days in ancient Greece or even China where sex was utterly wild and unrestrained, and homosexuality was considered superior to man-women relations. Women's groups should note that when homosexuality was celebrated, women were relegated to low social roles; when homosexuality was idealised in Greece, women were objects not partners, who ran homes and bore babies.  Back then, whether a man had sex with another man, woman or child was a matter of indifference, like one's eating preferences.  The only relevant category was penetrator and penetrated; sex was not seen as interactive intimacy, but a doing of something to someone.  How degrading.
  

   It was only when marriage was invented by the Jewish Torah that the genie of sexual impulses was forced into the marital bottle, so that sex no longer dominated society - this discipline provided the social base for the development of western civilisation.  Family is also the building block of our society. 
 

     As fellow citizens, homosexuals are entitled to expect decent treatment from the rest of us; but they have no right to insist we surrender our fundamental moral beliefs so they can feel comfortable about their sexual behaviour. We should not be subject to the tyranny of the undemocratic minority who want to violate our consciences, trample cherished moral virtues and threaten our collective welfare by imposing homosexual dogma on right-thinking people. Keep 377A.
 

    Sir, we Singaporeans will continue to debate and disagree over controversial moral issues as they arise. We should make substantive arguments and not think about our feelings; the media should present both sides fairly, without bias.
 

    However, I have noted a disturbing phenomenon over the 377A debate - the argument by insult. Instead of reasoning, some have resorted to name-calling to intimidate and silence their opponents. People with principled moral objections to the homosexual agenda are tarred and feathered "homophobes", "bigots", to shut them up. This strategy is unoriginally imported from foreign gay activists, which stifles creative thinking and intellectual enquiry.
  

  When you shout and call your opponents nasty names, this terminates public debate. No one wants to be called a bigot. But think about it - if I oppose incest, am I an incestophobe?  If I oppose alcoholism, am I a winophobe?  If having an opinion means you are a bigot, then we are all bigots!  What is your phobia?
 

     Where certain liberals accuse their opponents of being intolerant, they demonstrate their own intolerance towards their opponents! They are hoist on their own petard, guilty of everything they accuse their detractors of!  Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. 
 

    One of my colleagues, a young professor, suffered these vicious tactics when the Straits Times published an article this May where Yvonne Lee argued against repealing 377A. This well-researched, cogent article so incensed homosexual activists that they flooded her with a torrent of abusive, lewd emails and wrote to her Department Head calling for her to be removed from her job. This appeared to be a coordinated campaign.
 

     We academics are used to disagreement, but why write to her employer and threaten her livelihood? Why vilify someone and seek to assassinate their personal and professional reputation?  I hope this House joins me in deploring these malicious attacks which also assault academic freedom.  She is owed an apology.  I would be ashamed to belong to any academic institution that cravenly bowed down to such disgraceful bully-boy tactics. 
 

    This August, I had my own personal, unpleasant experience with this sort of hysterical attack. I received an email from someone I never met, full of vile and obscene invective which I shall not repeat, accusing me of hatemongering.  It cursed me and expressed the wish to defile my grave on the day 377A was repealed.
 

     I believe in free debate but this oversteps the line.  I was distressed, disgusted, upset enough to file a Police report. Does a normal person with a conscience to filter impulses, go up to a stranger to express such irrational hatred?  
 

    Smear tactics indicate the poor quality of debate and, also, of character.  Let us have rational debate, not diatribe and deception, free from abusive rhetoric and childish tantrums. As Singapore approaches her Jubilee, my hope for the post-65 generation is that we will not become an uncivil civil society born from an immature culture of vulgarity which celebrates the base, not the noble.

     Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.  You have three minutes left, Prof. Thio.

     Prof. Thio Li-ann:

Thank you.  I speak at the risk of being burned at the stake by militant activists.  But if we do not stand for something, we will fall for anything.  I was raised to believe in speaking out for what is right, good and true, no matter the cost.  It is important in life not only to have a brain, but a spine. 
 

      Sir, let speaking in the public square with reason, passion, honesty, civility, even grace, be the mark of a Citizen of Singapore.  [Applause.]

7.20 pm

     Mr Alvin Yeo (Hong Kah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to take part in this debate at this late hour.  After such powerful moving speeches from our two Nominated Members of Parliament, one is tempted to remain silent.  But allow me to respectfully add my perspective.

    In the run up to this debate, I read an interview or feature in the New Paper where Mr Siew Kum Hong  was asked for his personal background and his reasons for bringing this parliamentary Petition.  He replied that his personal background was irrelevant to the issue and that he was bringing this Petition as he supported the principle of equality of treatment, including for those who engage in homosexual conduct.

     I should say that I agree with Mr Siew that one's personal background is simply not relevant to the issue and, personally, I applaud Mr Siew for his willingness to subject himself to intense media and public scrutiny for a principle he subscribes to.  I say that one's own background and indeed one's own personal views are not what is really important.  Because our role as Members of this House is to represent not so much our own views, but those who have placed us in this position of responsibility.  This means that one has to take account of not just the minority views but the majority views as well, to not just listen to the vocal, the articulate, the high profile spokesmen for their various causes, but to try and discern the views of the vast and silent segments of the population whose views and feelings run just as strong.

    It is generally accepted that a large portion of the population remains uncomfortable with, even troubled, by homosexual behaviour.  The Straits Times ran a poll where something like 70% expressed discomfort with these views.  Those of the Muslim faith, many with Christian beliefs, oppose the condoning of homosexual conduct.  Do their views not have to be taken into account?  Is this tyranny of the majority?  Some commentators think that it is outmoded for our laws to reflect the moral and social values of the people it governs. I disagree.

     In our nation which has, as one of its ingrained principles, the rule of law, indeed it is usually considered one of our competitive strengths as well, the law stands, not just as a boundary line of what conduct will or will not be prosecuted, but as a moral compass of what we stand for.  It is a benchmark of our values, our beliefs, not just a reference book to determine when we can sue and when we can be sued.  That is why our courts, in interpreting the law, have always required parties to observe not just the letter of the law, but also its spirit and its purpose.

     In this regard, I do take issue with the two points that Mr Siew, notwithstanding his forceful and loquacious arguments, has made.  The first is that, because the Ministry has said that section 377A will not be proactively enforced, it is an admission that no harm results from it.  I think other speakers, more eloquent than me, have spoken of the social and psychological and moral harm that can result from embarking or slipping down the slippery slope.  I prefer to think that the stand of the Ministry is not because they recognise that there is no harm, but because they wish to show some degree of tolerance to those who subscribe to different views to give them some space in their personal lives.  But they are standing firm on what the principles and beliefs that our society stands for in continuing to have this law on the statute books.

     Mr Siew also says that he does not agree with this "signposting" argument because, to him, signposting is an all-or-nothing approach.  Again, I have to respectfully disagree.  There are certain key markers in all our laws which reasonate through the fabric of our society more than others.  For instance, how many of you have heard of section 498 which has to do with enticing a married woman, and how many of you consider that doing away with that law means that this House is permitting adultery or promiscuity? Certainly, from all the press reports, none of them seem to labour under the misimpression that the non-repeal of section 377A was what that particular signpost was about.

     One of the points made is about equal treatment for all before the law, including homosexuals, which I think is the central plank of the petition that has been presented.  Equality before the law is a fundamental concept.  But it cannot be looked at in vacuum.  It does not deprive a state, a government, of regulating what it considers to be proper and correct behaviour.  It is equal rights for all, as measured against the values and beliefs of our society.  And our society is a multi-religious, multi-racial and multi-cultural one.  So, for instance, we have an Administration of Muslim Law Act which imposes a separate regime on Muslims in family and estate matters.  Yet, we do not hear complaints about unequal treatment from either Muslims or non-Muslims.  It is accepted as part of our multi-cultural, multi-religious Singapore.

     To take another more recent example, the Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA), where Muslims are not subject to the same opting-out provisions on account of their religious beliefs.

Even then, discussions and consultations are going on within the Muslim community and outside, to remove this particular difference.  Again, the principle of equal treatment of all has to be moderated by our aim of preserving harmony among our different races, of mutual respect for each other's beliefs.  I do not believe that anyone seriously contends we should not continue to uphold this.

     Having said that, there may be something to be learnt from HOTA and the discussions relating to its possible change.  To those who support the removal of section 377A, it is an object demonstration that laws can and do change based on a reconciliation of different views.  But such changes, particularly where they involve deeply-held deep-seated religious and moral beliefs, do take time and they cannot be forced.  Indeed, I hope that all concerned in this particular lobby effort will be patient and understand that the views of others do count as well and try to give this issue more time and not let it be something that divides our society.

    Overall, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the changes to the Penal Code may keep it more relevant to this day and age and are to be welcomed. 

     Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

7.29 pm

     Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate at this very late hour.  I promise to be very brief.

     I rise to support the Bill.  A major overhaul of the Penal Code was timely, and the Ministry of Home Affairs has obviously put in much effort and thought to the amendments.  I particularly commend the new laws to protect minors from sexual predators, whether here or abroad, and I support the amendments fully.

     Let me touch briefly on the issue of section 377A.  As Professor Ho pointed out, this is one debate which will not see people switching sides easily.  Both proponents and opponents of the law have deeply entrenched views on the subject, and that is unlikely to change for some time.  I have personally asked many people, both young and old, what they think of this issue, and the almost common consensus is that they do not want this law to be repealed and that is consistent with the feedback the Government has received. 

     So I do not wish to engage in a moral debate, and certainly not a long one, and I have no rousing speech to deliver.  What I wish to do is to approach it from a lawyer's point of view and how I see Parliament and Parliament's role in making laws.

     Sir, as a lawyer, the power of Parliament to make law is of particular interest to me.  When judges and lawyers interpret laws, they are, in certain instances, permitted to refer to Hansard to determine the intention behind any word, phrase or provision in a piece of legislation.  Parliamentary debates, therefore, play an important role not just in the passing of laws but how they will be understood by those who later apply them.  What we say here or do must be consistent with the law we promulgate and also make sense to those who will scrutinise our words perhaps years from now.  In my submission, laws must meet the three Cs, ie, be clear, consistent and concrete, meaning that they must be substantive, effective and make sense.  What I find difficult about this issue before us is that while the majority do not wish a repeal for good reason, intellectually, section 377A does, in some respects, fall short of what a good law is or should be. 

     Sir, first, it is unclear what the current legal position is.  In a statement on 7th of November 2006, the Ministry of Home Affairs said that, with respect to section 377A, it will not be proactive in enforcing the section against adult males engaging in consensual sex with each other in private.  But what does that mean?  Does it mean that the Police will not act on complaints or that suspects may be investigated but ultimately not arrested or prosecuted?  Or is it the case that the Attorney-General, who has prosecutorial discretion, may prosecute some but not all offenders?  That puts the Attorney-General in a difficult position because selective prosecution will give rise to more issues.  But if the intention is not to do anything at all, then what is the purpose of having the law?  Does it not hurt our credibility that we have laws that are toothless?  The Penal Code is an important piece of legislation and, in the long run, making some conduct criminal under our Penal Code whilst stating that the law will not be enforced, simply invites attacks on the integrity of the Code.

     Second, we are not being consistent.  The retention of section 377A is often justified as being consistent with the importance society places on family values.  But society has done away with criminalising a whole host of other conduct, which is far more damaging to family values, such as adultery, which carries a more direct threat to the integrity of the family.  And adultery was one of the original Ten Commandments.  Further, it is not always true that laws always reflect society's or the moral position.  Marital rape is a good example.  I cannot imagine any Member of the House believing that it is acceptable for a man to force himself on a woman under any circumstances, regardless of whether they are married.  But we do not completely outlaw marital rape.  The Bill here certainly protects a woman more by prescribing circumstances under which her husband can be charged with rape, but the protection is not absolute for wives.  Why?  Over and above the reasons that have been given - and in this respect I share NMP Ms Eunice Olsen's criticisms of those reasons - more importantly, the law knows its own limits and it is practically impossible to properly enforce a law by giving a wife absolute protection.  So, likewise, we also accept that the Penal Code is not the appropriate tool to legislate or regulate the private heterosexual behaviour of consenting adults.  Indeed, it is almost impossible to effectively do so.  In addition, the question arises also why section 377A does not deal with lesbianism.  Over and above the legal basis for discriminating between men and women, where is the consistency?

     Thirdly, Sir, the law has no real substance.  Through a 15-year period, ie, 1988 to 2003, there were only eight convictions under section 377A involving seven incidents.  Two convictions were for the same incident.  Moreover, it has not been invoked in respect of consensual sex since 1993.  So this law is rarely applied or, if applied, it applies to minors or acts in public.  Does that mean that private consensual homosexual acts do not happen in Singapore?  To believe that would be naive.  The truth is that it is virtually impossible to enforce this law.  Now that the MHA has said that it will not actively pursue offenders, we are not likely to see any prosecutions in the future, certainly not many.  

     Sir, I accept that even if a law is difficult to enforce, it can still serve a legitimate purpose in its underlying message, and section 377A sends the message that those who engage in homosexual activities are criminals.  But at the same time, we have been saying that our society will not reject those with alternative lifestyles.  We have even said that such individuals have a place in our civil service.  

     It has also recently been said that homosexuality may be genetic, and the debate on this issue is still raging on.  Now, the MHA says that it will not prosecute offenders.  So what is the message we are sending?  Are we for or against it?  What do we stand for?  While this may be an uncomfortable issue, we should at least make our position clear.  Just to cite an example by Mr Christopher De Souza, he says, messaging is important, and he cites the example of suicides, that if we do not make it an offence to commit suicide, we are sending the message that suicide is acceptable.  But there is no inconsistent messaging for suicide.  So it is not such a clear issue.

     Sir, my second issue is with the arguments put forward by the opposing camp.  The opponents of the repeal have expressed concern that any repeal may be construed as endorsement by the Government in favour of alternative lifestyles.  That is a fair point.  However, likewise, I hope that any decision not to repeal will not be regarded as an endorsement for some of the reasons that have been advanced to oppose it.  What are some of these reasons?

     First, the argument advanced by some religious groups that section 377A should be retained because homosexuality is an abomination.  I respect their right to express their views, and I do not think this is the appropriate time or place for me to discuss it.  But we must remind ourselves that we are a secular state, where every one is equal in the eyes of the law, and it is important to assure all citizens of Singapore that decisions will always be made on secular grounds.   

     Second is the notion that section 377A reflects our Asian values.  But section 377A is not even Asian in origin.  Section 377 was originally based on an English criminal law which sought to prohibit sodomy, and was incorporated into the Indian Penal Code in late 1862.  It was also adapted for the Straits Settlements Penal Code in 1871.  Section 377A was later added under the sub-title "Unnatural offences" in 1938.  Both sections were absorbed unchanged into the Singapore Penal Code when the latter was passed by Singapore's Legislative Council on 28th January 1955.  In short, we inherited this from the British.  There is nothing distinctly Asian about it.

     Third is the argument that repealing section 377A will lead to a rampant increase in homosexuality, and thereby increase HIV rates.  First, retaining the law can make no difference because offenders have already been told that they will not be prosecuted.  Second, Sir, it is stretching logic to suggest that the repeal will lead to a sudden proliferation of homosexual activity.  Thirdly, making something illegal only forces it underground.  That will restrict the ability of the Government to respond to the HIV threat through promotion and education, when Government agencies feel that they cannot engage with the gay community in any way except a condemnatory one. 

     Finally, Sir, is the argument that the repeal is a slippery slope, that it will herald the end of the family unit.   As I have said earlier, there is no consistency in our laws to support this argument.  Further, while society may frown on homosexuality, that, by itself, does not justify criminalising it.  A number of speakers, at least one of them, have highlighted the surveys in the Straits Times where the public was polled and 70% were said to frown on homosexuality.  I can understand that.  Seventy percent frowned on it.  But how many actually said that they were willing to criminalise it?  That question was not even asked, and that is a serious question because that is the issue we face today.

     Some Members have mentioned the possibility of same-sex marriages occurring here.  That, no doubt, will be an issue which gay activists will push further down the road.  But that involves the Government actively endorsing and passing legislation to recognise same-sex marriages.  So the arguments here do not apply. 

     Sir, can I end by putting the question in another way?  I say there is another way to test the issue: assume we are here debating whether to include section 377A into our Penal Code, would we do it?  I am not sure we would, because we would hesitate about passing laws to deal with private acts in the bedroom.  But because it is already there, we are comfortable living in there.

     Sir, it may well be that our society today is not ready to debate this issue.  I hope that it will not be too long before we feel ready to do so, because I think that is a sign of our growing maturity.  But when we do debate this issue, I hope that the debate will be calm and measured as that typifies the way we do things in Singapore.  Certainly, we do not wish to see any proliferation of hate messages of mails and other things which Professor Thio Li-ann has talked about.  That is certainly not the way we do things in Singapore, and long may that continue.  Ultimately, laws should be passed or repealed not only because the majority wants it that way, but because it makes sense and it is in the interests of Singapore as a whole, including the interests of all minority groups.