Hansard, 1957-05-22

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (3) (i) of section 47 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, obtained from the Speaker permission to be or to remain absent from meetings of the Assembly: Mr Francis Thomas- from 30th April to 30th May, 1957; Mr Lim Koon Teck- from 1st May to 5th June, 1957.

I have received two messages from His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government of Singapore dated the 4th and 10th May, 1957, respectively, informing me that His Excellency has, in accordance with the provisions of section 62 (2) of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, assented to the following Bills:-

For the record, I have formally to announce to Honourable Members that on the 30th April, 1957, I received letters from the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) and from the Member for Cairnhill (Mr David Marshall) resigning their seats in the Assembly. In accordance with section 50 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, I reported the vacancies thus created to His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government of Singapore.

asked the Chief Minister whether he will make a statement on the results of his recent visit to Kuala Lumpur; and, in particular, whether at that visit he made approaches with the view to the improvement of trade relations between Singapore and the Federation. The Chief Minister (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, at a joint conference of Ministers held in Kuala Lumpur on 3rd May, 1957, a number of subjects of mutual interest to Singapore and the Federation were discussed. The effects of Federation duty on Singapore manufactures received the attention of this joint conference. The Federation Government has since presented to its Legislative Council on Tuesday, 7th May, a White Paper on its protective tariff policy. Singapore made representations to the effect that any form of tariff protection might have adverse economic consequences for both territories. The need for close consultation between the two territories was stressed to ensure that the interests of both territories would be consulted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Chief Minister state whether specific industries were discussed and whether he could hold out hope of employment in the soap industry?

Sir, in view of the delicate nature of the question, we have discussed this in the joint conference in Kuala Lumpur. We tried all we could to persuade them to accept our representations, but in the light of the White Paper which the Federation Government presented on 7th May, we were told that a committee would be formed by the Federation Government to which further representations could be made by this Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Chief Minister state what further efforts he is making or proposes to make to improve trade relations?

That is a different question.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare what is the estimated increase in the number of unemployed persons in Singapore since April 1955, and what steps are being taken to reduce unemployment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in answer to a similar question in this House in February 1956, I explained that accurate figures for the numbers of unemployed persons in Singapore are not available. For this reason I cannot state the number of unemployed persons in April 1955 any more than I can state the increase or decrease in the number since that date. As recently as last January I informed this House that a study of the various factors which affect employment in Singapore did not suggest that there had been any appreciable change in the unemployment situation during the year 1956. I believe that that still substantially represents the position today. However, I must inform the House that recent reports do seem to indicate a decline in employment in certain industries. For example, there has been a reduction of 10 per cent to 15 per cent in the numbers of workmen employed in the saw-milling and rubber packing factories. Employment in biscuit factories has declined by about 25 per cent. These changes appear to have been due to Federation of Malaya duties and smaller quantities of low-grade rubber imports. The retrenchment of about 400 industrial workers at the Naval Base has been well publicised. Information collected during the Labour Department's census of manual workers in employment at the end of March has not yet been fully compiled, so that I am unable to state whether there have been increases in other industries to compensate for the decrease I have mentioned. Members will appreciate that in a competitive trading centre like Singapore, there are inevitable ups and downs in particular industries. It may be that when the census is complete, it will show a contraction in the employment of manual workers over the last six months; but I am satisfied that the net change will not give rise to undue alarm. Employment exchanges' records show counts of persons actively seeking employment assistance at various times as follows: April 1955 - 7,031. April 1956 - 8,122. April 1957 - 8,074. I am bound to point out that the figure for March 1957 was 8,858. Last month there was a sharp fall which will probably only be temporary, as a result of recruitment for census duties. To sum up, there has probably been an increase in the number of unemployed persons in Singapore since April 1955, both as a result of school leavers coming on to the employment market and a recent fall in the volume of employment. I estimate that the total is of the order of one per cent of the total number of persons in employment. The Government's aim is to pursue a policy of full employment. Public works are maintained at as high a level as resources of the building construction industry allow. These works not merely provide temporary employment for those engaged in actual construction, but permanent employment for those who maintain and operate the schools, hospitals and public buildings which are erected. Government is anxious to create the necessary conditions under which existing industries will expand and new industries can be attracted to Singapore. The Industrial Promotion Board has been set up to assist in this process.

With reference to the steps being taken to reduce unemployment, will the Minister state whether those longest on the unemployment register are given the first chance to train as census workers?

Sir, I am not able to reply to this question without notice. I did not know this question was coming up. As far as the census work is concerned, it is left to the Registrar to take on people with qualifications. According to the system we employ in the Labour Department, those longest on the list are always given the first choice, but we do not direct any prospective employer as to how he should choose.

asked the Chief Secretary-

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to (a) the answer is Yes. With regard to (b), there was no official strike of the temporary clerks. What happened was that on the 29th of April two temporary clerks, whose services were to be terminated along with others the following day, absented themselves without permission from their offices and picketed the Government offices, Empress Place. It is understood that they were joined there by four other clerks all of whom had obtained leave of absence. Their action did not have the support of the only union which is recognised as representing the clerical classes, and they did this at a time when the union representatives were negotiating for an extension of the notices terminating their service. The two clerks who had absented themselves did not turn up at their office on the 30th. There was therefore no question of extending their notices. With regard to (c), Sir, as I have already stated, there was no official strike. To the extent that those who stayed away without leave did not have their notices extended, there was disparity of treatment, but I have already indicated the reason for this in my previous answer. Those who continued to serve up to the 30th of April were allowed to stay on for another month pending the result of the review of the case of temporary clerks by the Public Service Commission. There was, however, no difference in treatment in the matter of the review by the Public Service Commission. Those who absented themselves were not excluded from the review and the Government had made it clear to the union and in a public statement that if, on review, any of them were recommended for absorption, they would be reinstated in the service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Chief Secretary tell us what action was taken against those four clerks who had permission to be absent?

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to those four clerks, as they had leave of absence, they returned to their offices and no action was taken against them.

asked the Chief Secretary if the Government will reconsider the case of the dismissed temporary clerks along with those whose services have been extended for one month, after a review and report on the case of temporary clerks by the Public Service Commission.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the up-to-date position is that the Public Service Commission has completed the review and they see no reason to vary their original decision. This means that those temporary clerks not selected will not be absorbed permanently into the General Clerical Service or the General Clerical Assistant Service. The Government has, however, found alternative employment in junior jobs for a number of these temporary clerks and will continue in its efforts to find suitable jobs for as many of the others as possible. It must, however, be appreciated that Government's capacity to do this is of necessity very limited.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he will make a statement on the recruitment and training of the new Singapore Infantry Battalion, and when he expects the Battalion to be fully operational.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the strength of the Singapore Infantry Battalion as at the 20th of May, 1957, was 237. Recruiting is temporarily suspended until 1st August this year because training capacity is full and there are still nearly a thousand applicants who have passed the initial recruiting test and who have not yet been called for medical and personnel selection tests. The next squad will be attested in June from this backlog of one thousand applicants and will leave the temporary barracks at Ulu Pandan for the Malayan Basic Training Centre at Nee Soon in July. Three officer cadets are in training at the Federation Military College and two more have recently been earmarked by the Selection Board for training at the Officer Cadet School at Portsea in Australia. All these cadets are due to be commissioned as Second Lieutenants towards the end of 1958. There are four squads under training at the Malayan Basic Training Centre, Nee Soon, and all are doing well. The senior squad has begun range training and its standard is promising. The first squad is due to pass out from the Malayan Basic Training Centre on the 6th of July. The next two squads are due to pass out together on 27th July. The target date to complete recruit training for the Battalion is August 1958, and it is hoped that the Battalion will be fully operational, by which I take it to mean "up to battalion strength and fully and appropriately equipped and trained for its role", by the end of 1958.

asked the Chief Secretary to state the total number of expatriate officers who have left the service of the Singapore Government to date as a result of Malayanisation, and the number from each Department; and the total amount of compensation that has been paid, to date, to these officers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the total number of expatriate officers who have left the service of the Singapore Government to date, 22nd May, as a result of Malayanisation, is 76. The number from each Department is as follows: Administrative service, 8. Legal and Judicial service, 1. Broadcasting, 2. Botanic Gardens, 2. Police, 13. Prisons, 10. Customs, 3. Income Tax, 2. Marine, 1. Education, 8. Medical, 11. Immigration, 2. Labour, 1. Civil Aviation, 2. Meteorological, 3. Postal, 1. Public Works Department, 3. Telecommunications, 1. Defence services, 2. The total compensation paid to date is $3,813,242.95 cents.

asked the Financial Secretary whether in view of the indication given by the Chief Minister, Federation of Malaya, that pan-Malayan departments such as income tax would be split when the Federation attains independence, and the statement made by the Chief Minister, Federation of Malaya, that a sub-committee is drafting a separate income tax law for the Federation, he will state the policy of the Government in this matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's policy on the administration of income tax is still as stated by my predecessor in his Budget speech on the 7th of November, 1956, and reported in column 607 of the Official Report. The Federation Government has made known to this Government her intention of dissolving the present pan-Malayan administration of income tax. This Government has asked her for a discussion so that the various aspects of this matter will be fully considered before a final decision is taken. It is the intention of this Government to bring to her attention the manifold advantages and benefits to the two territories of the present system and the immense unfortunate consequences that would follow a dissolution. It is hoped thereby to persuade her to continue with the present practice.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing on what date it is proposed to hold fresh elections to the City Council; and whether elections to the new District Councils will be held on the same date.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Government's intention is to hold the City Council elections in December this year. Elections to the District Councils will not take place simultaneously but will be held about March 1958.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister state the reason why the District Council elections will not take place simultaneously with those of the City Council?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not possible to hold both City and District Council elections simultaneously, as more time is required to prepare a further 5,000 pages of the register over and above the City Council register.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister not aware that the Government has already had plenty of time in which to prepare the register, due to the fact that the White Paper on Local Government was issued many months ago?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to draw the attention of the Member for Tanglin to the fact that a great deal depends upon how soon the Select Committee on the Local Government Bill will be able to get through its work.

asked the Minister for Education what steps have been taken to reduce the cost of new school buildings in the rural areas; and whether he proposes to erect such buildings with materials similar to those used for the Singapore Infantry Battalion buildings at Ulu Pandan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, through the combined efforts of the Public Works Department and the Advisory Panel on School Buildings, the standard of construction, finishings and fittings in our new schools has been reduced to a minimum. A considerable saving was made last year by the adoption of a completely new design of three-storeyed schools. Technical advice has also been obtained from the Public Works Department on using cheaper materials for school buildings, such as timber, but saving on first costs would be more than offset by the cost of additional land, for construction would be reduced to two-storeys, and increase in maintenance costs. The need for economy in the use of land and avoiding increasing annually recurrent maintenance cost must therefore outweigh the use of cheaper materials. It is not proposed to build schools using materials similar to those used for the Singapore Infantry Battalion buildings at Ulu Pandan.

asked the Minister for Health whether he will make a statement on the causes of the recent influenza epidemic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose to make a full statement on the influenza epidemic to this House before the business of the day. The statement no doubt will answer many points that may be in the mind of the Member for Tanglin. But to answer this particular question briefly, the cause of influenza is generally by a virus known as Type A or Type B, it was originally thought that the cause of the present epidemic was by Type A, but recent indications are that it might possibly be a new virus previously unknown to medical science. The virus has been sent to the United States, the United Kingdom and Melbourne for identification and further study. The origin of the epidemic is unknown. It is most likely that it originated in Japan where it prevailed extensively, generally in a mild form, but it appears to have invaded Taiwan, the Philippines, Hongkong and the Federation of Malaya, and I believe that it has already now appeared in Australia.

asked the Minister for Health what progress has been made in the construction of the first District Hospital.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the site of the District Hospital on East Coast Road has been surveyed, the lay-out site plan approved, and a Gazette notification for the acquisition of the site and access roads will appear or should appear next week. Detailed drawings are in the course of preparation. These, I am told, are due to take at least a year to complete. The ground work, however, is expected to commence in three or four months' time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction over the great delay in the building of the District Hospital, now extended over two years?

Any delay, Mr Speaker, Sir, is outside my own jurisdiction.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister not regard himself as responsible in any way for the building of the District Hospital?

asked the Minister for Health what benefits have accrued to Singapore from his recent visit to medical institutions in Japan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the visits to medical institutions, in particular, the new hospitals, the teaching hospitals, and polyclinics have enabled us to study economical methods and their medical application in a progressive eastern country and the achievements they have been able to report. These observations are now under study and there is reason to believe that both improvements and reduction in costs can be brought about in this colony by using some of the practical and money-saving devices now being used in Japan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware that the report he has made could equally well have been made by officials in his Ministry?

Mr Speaker, Sir, that would be true had the invitation of the Japanese Government been one limited only to attend medical conferences or a conference of medical planners, or purely of professional personnel. The invitation extended to me, as I understood it and as it turned out to be, was not one only to inspect medical institutions and teaching hospitals, but also a goodwill mission. My conversations with the Prime Minister and with men of the top rank, both officially and unofficially, and the exchange of views are in my opinion most useful and contribute to the better understanding of our two Asian countries.

Would the benefits which the Minister expects to accrue from his Japanese trip in terms of dollars and cents be more than the total cost to Government of his mission?

What was the cost to the public revenue of his trip, Sir?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must have notice of this question.

asked the Minister for Communications and Works how many applications for new bus routes have been received by the Omnibus Licensing Authority since the setting up of that body, and how many of such applications have been approved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of applications for new bus routes received by the Omnibus Services Licensing Authority since the setting up of that body on 16th April is 13. Two such applications have been approved and one has been referred back to the sub-committee of the Authority for reconsideration.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister state the reasons why the Omnibus Licensing Authority is being so obstructive in the matter of allowing new bus routes?

Sir, I wish to draw the hon. Member's attention to the recommendation in paragraph 246 on pages 56 and 57 of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Public Passenger Transport System of Singapore, commonly known as the Hawkins' Report. It says in paragraph 246: "It does not appear to us that textual amendments to the legislation setting up these temporary arrangements need be extensive, but we consider they should include a provision that the new licensing authority would work under any directions of a general character given by the Minister for Communications and Works, and that one such direction should require the licensing authority not to undertake a reorganisation of existing routes pending the establishment of the new body, whether public authority or company, and not to authorize or approve new or extended routes except any which are necessary to give transport services where they are not already provided (with whatever minor overlapping may be unavoidable.)" It is based on this recommendation in the Report that the Minister directs the Authority that it should regard its functions as being transitional pending the unification of all the omnibus service undertakings in Singapore. It should accordingly not license any new or extended route except where, in the opinion of the Authority, it is required to give an essential transport service. Sir, the Omnibus Services Licensing Authority has not been obstructive.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the case of new applications which probably have been submitted before the Authority for over half a year, why were not the applicants informed whether their applications were approved or rejected or in the process of being considered?

Every applicant, Sir, has been informed of the decision of the Licensing Authority.

Arising out of the answer given by the Minister, is it correct for the Government to say then that only two applications have been approved and over twenty have been rejected or disapproved?

Yes, two applications have been approved and one, as I have said, has been referred back to the Authority for consideration.

What about the twenty and more?

The others have been rejected.

Is the Minister aware that large newly developed areas of Singapore require new bus routes and that these are necessary? Will he issue a directive to the Authority to give more assistance to the public?

As a result of large developments of housing estates, I have already given instructions to the Authority to consider the needs of the public in relation to transport.

Is the Minister aware that an application as far back as September 1956 has not as yet got a reply?

As far as I know, no such case has ever happened.

Will the Minister state whether any application for deviation of routes within the main route is considered a new route and will the Licensing Authority consider such an application?

Sir, it is sub-judice to answer that question because some of the applications are for the deviation of present routes and I would rather not give a definite reply now in order not to prejudice any decision that might be reached by the Authority.

Does the Minister think that this delay was due to corruption or what?

asked the Minister for Communications and Works how soon it is proposed to introduce a unified public transport system for Singapore island, and what are the reasons for the delay in implementing the policy laid down in the Government White Paper (Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 48 of 1956).

Sir, the White Paper to which the hon. Member refers stated that it would not be possible for responsibility for operating any bus services to be assumed by a unified undertaking before the middle of 1958 and that it was aimed to have the whole process completed in 1959. Although no decision has yet been taken as to whether unification should be achieved by means of a public authority or through the formation of a statutory company, the Government does not at present see any reason to modify that time-table. Meanwhile, other preparations are going ahead.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister state when the Government proposes to make up its mind on this question in view of its election promises?

I have already stated that the Government has already made up its mind. If the hon. Member refers to Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 48 of 1956, paragraph 10 of that Paper states that Government's policy of unifying the passenger transport system should be directed by target dates for the various stages in the implementation of that policy and the time-table is laid down there. Therefore, the Government has never deviated from that policy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware that his colleague the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas) gave an assurance at the time of the publication of the White Paper that there would be a debate on this matter? Will he state why this promise has not been kept?

I understand that a debate was carried on on the issue of that White Paper. It was already debated in the Assembly.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether he will make a statement on the steps being taken to develop the prawn-fishing industry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the first phase of the experiments conducted at the Fisheries Division experimental prawn ponds to determine how to obtain the maximum yield from existing prawn ponds with the lowest expenditure and labour was completed in 1956. The second phase of the experiments began this year. This introduces pig rearing into routine prawn pond operation with the view to increasing the income of the prawn pond operators. The waste products of pig rearing will be used to fertilize the ponds with the object of increasing the yield from the present estimated figure of one-third of a ton per acre per annum. My Ministry has been hoping to utilise a further 1,373 acres of swamp land at Ulu Pandan for prawn ponds but since the area is in the Ulu Pandan Forest Reserve, there is a conflict of interest which will need to be sorted out.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware that it has now been discovered that prawns breed in the mangrove areas and will he give due consideration to this important point?

I certainly will, Sir

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether he will make a statement on the policy the Government proposes to adopt in respect of the tourist industry.

Sir, as the hon. Member himself is aware, I am now in consultation with those interests connected with tourism before Government policy on the tourist industry is finalised. I hope therefore to be able to make an announcement on Government policy in the near future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware that I urged the question of tourist promotion in November 1955 and again in 1956, and that it had the unanimous support of all sections of this House during the Budget debate and will he state the reasons for the delay in deciding on the policy?

Sir, the hon. Member is aware that an expert had come out from New Zealand to put up recommendations on increasing the tourist trade here. I believe that it was towards the end of last year that his Report was submitted and it does take a bit of time to decide on whether the recommendations should be strictly followed or varied or what other steps should be taken. I am also anxious that Government policy should not be finalised before I have had time to consult with those connected with tourism because they might have suggestions which might be useful.

Sir, is the Minister aware that this Government may take a long time to make up its mind and that other Governments might be quicker?

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry how many new industries and/or enterprises have been established since January 1956, and how many have ceased operation since then.

Sir, during the period 1st January, 1956 to 30th April, 1957, 133 new industries were established, and 12 industries ceased operations during the same period.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the epidemic of influenza which has visited Singapore has aroused anxiety and I feel it incumbent upon me to make a full statement for the benefit of the House. As I have already stated earlier, this disease is believed to have originated in Japan and has invaded Taiwan, the Philippines, Hongkong, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. A characteristic of this disease is its capacity to attack suddenly, although the actual disease is mild, and to extend very quickly. The extreme conditions of overcrowding, particularly in the town, must certainly have favoured the spread. It must also be realised from the epidemiological point of view that the entire island of Singapore is one composite urban unit with denser aggregations north and south of the Singapore River. In consequence, an island-wide spread was inevitable and indeed the spread to the Federation of Malaya was inevitable. In the view of medical experts, it is likely to prevail in an epidemic form until about the end of this month and from daily reports, there are definite signs of a decline and that it is well on its way out. There is no known preventive or cure for the disease. The only course - which was unthinkable - was to close the port of Singapore and all the ports of the Federation of Malaya and the Siamese border against the entry of any craft whatsoever, and impose martial law to keep people in their homes until the disease had spent itself on a worldwide career. There is no specific cure for influenza as there is none for an ordinary common cold. The number of persons affected by the disease in Singapore and attended to by our medical clinics, and mobile and floating dispensaries totalled approximately 25,000. It is estimated that an equal number have been treated by private practitioners and local medicine men. So much publicity has been given to the epidemic that I have every reason to believe that the number of persons who were actually attacked by the disease and who have not sought treatment would be negligible. Directly it was evident that the disease had attacked Singapore, Government took every possible measure to combat and control it. Briefly, the steps taken by Government were, firstly, my Ministry issued warning and advice through the Press, Rediffusion and the Radio and the personnel of the medical services to the people to keep away from crowds and to rest in bed if the disease was apparent. Secondly, elective surgery was restricted to the barest minimum practicable to make possible the release of medical personnel to augment outpatient services. Further, extra travelling dispensaries were mobilised. Prior to the onset of the epidemic, we had three travelling dispensaries visiting various parts of the island. In addition to this, we had two floating dispensaries doing monthly visits of the islands. On the onset of the epidemic, Government mobilised five travelling dispensaries doing double shifts and the floating dispensaries were put on an emergency basis to visit each of the islands twice a week. The entire staff was stretched to the limit. Simultaneously, the pharmaceutical manufactory immediately increased its production of essential drugs. The attack of the disease commences with fever, headache, pains in the limbs and back, nausea and sore throat and sometimes accompanied with cough and giddiness and a temperature which ranges from 101 to 102. The duration of the fever is about two days and the patient settles down to normal within four to five days and there seem to be very few complications. It would appear that four persons might have died of the disease although biological confirmation has yet to be available. Persons diagnosed as having died of influenza depended solely on morbid anatomy. During this period, there were a few other fatal cases in which findings suggest influenza but there were other complications such as broncho-pneumonia, heart disease and nervous manifestations and, in the absence of the virus, it is hardly possible to attribute them to influenza as the causal agent of death. Information from commercial firms is that about 10 per cent of the staff were away at some time or other. The disease seems to have been confined to Asians, Europeans being very little affected. Whether there is an immunity already in the European race is difficult to decide at the moment. Here, I would like to pay tribute to the excellent team-work and ungrudging service of all members of the Ministry, particularly the doctors, sisters, nurses, dispensers and others who worked throughout - some of them fifteen hours a day on their feet. In paying this tribute, I do so on my own personal knowledge: I visited the outpatient department in the General Hospital and saw the work that was being done there. I have discussed matters with the personnel manning the services and the streamline basis on which they were operating to meet the emergency and I have been given the assurance that there was an adequate supply of drugs. My discussions with all my officers convinced me that the disease is of a very mild nature. Members of this House are, of course, aware that the schools were closed. After consulting my medical advisers and on receiving reports from the Ministry of Education that there was a large number of absentees both of pupils and teachers, I recommended that the schools be temporarily closed with the advice to parents and/or guardians that children should be kept away from crowded places. The reasons for this are threefold: first, large numbers of children travel in crowded buses to and from schools and it is very easy for them to acquire the infection in a crowded bus; second, an infected child would spread to others in the school, persons in the buses and members of the home; and third, the Minister for Education was concerned with the practical difficulty of holding classes without teachers. In normal conditions, recorded deaths from pneumonia in Singapore rank high in the fatality list. In view of the anxiety created in the minds of the population, it is not unnatural for persons to believe that anybody dying of any respiratory infection must have died of influenza and it is a pity that, in some cases, most exaggerated reports have tended to aggravate the fears in the minds of the people. A glaring example of this is the report on the mercy mission to Pulau Sudong. Following the visit of the mercy mission, it was reported in the local Press with alarming headlines that 300 persons out of a total population of about 450 were down with influenza and that three had died of it but Government was not giving any special treatment or help and that the people were dying of starvation. This, Sir, was a terrible indictment but proved to be a gross exaggeration. It was known to my Ministry at that time that there were only 21 cases with the disease and that none had died of it. On reading this astounding report, I made immediate enquiries. It was then confirmed by the medical officer and the hospital assistants who visited the island twice a week that only 11 children and 10 adults, most of whom were recovering from influenza, were the only cases in Pulau Sudong. There were, in fact, three deaths: one child from convulsions, another child from gastro-enteritis and the third, a woman, from goitre. Not satisfied with this report, I sent two other medical officers with members of the Press in attendance to make a further detailed check. The penghulu's services were specially enlisted to permit the doctors to examine every sick person on the island. The penghulu went hither and thither and eventually brought 51 persons for examination most of whom looked far from ill and were, in fact, in a cheerful and gay mood. Of the 51, there were two new cases of mild infection and a further six convalescents. The remaining 43 intimated that they were going out fishing that night. What was even more surprising, in view of the allegation that most of the population was starving, was the finding that there was not a single case of malnutrition amongst those examined. I would remind hon. Members of the House that those persons examined on that day were persons specifically selected by the penghulu himself as being those most in need because they were either sick or starving. There was no need to panic and it is further to be regretted that the fear caused in the minds of the people did much more harm than this mild outbreak of influenza really did. Again, one of the local papers reported that the victims of this disease had to travel from Changi, Katong and Tampenis to the General Hospital and one of these questioned by the reporter was alleged to have said, "We should have our own dispensaries in our areas or quicker attention in the General Hospital outpatient department." I would like, Sir, to remind this House and the people of Singapore that in addition to the services given by the travelling dispensaries in the rural areas and the General Hospital outpatient department, static outpatient clinics and dispensaries are and have been in existence in the following places - and all these have been working full strength during the epidemic: (1) the Kandang Kerbau outpatient dispensary for women and children; (2) the Tan Tock Seng outdoor dispensary for males; (3) the Paya Lebar outdoor clinic; (4) the Bukit Panjang outdoor clinic at the 10th mile; (5) the Bukit Timah outdoor clinic at the 7th mile; (6) the Holland Road outdoor clinic at Holland Village; (7) the Thomson Road outdoor clinic at the 6th mile; (8) the Changi Prison clinic for prison staff and Government servants in the area and their families; (9) the Changi clinic at the 14th mile, Changi; (10) the Gulega Road clinic at the 9th mile, Changi Road; (11) the Kampong Batak clinic in the Malay Settlement: (12) the Kallang outdoor dispensary at the old Kallang Airport site. In addition, the City Council maintains three outpatient clinics solely for City Council employees which relieve the pressure on the Government services. Furthermore, our records show that there had been daily attendances at all the clinics mentioned and if it is of interest to any Member of this House, he is welcome to inspect these records. Apart from the Kallang outdoor dispensary which was only recently opened, of which existence the public has been well aware and is prominently situated in the old Airport site, all the other clinics have been in existence for at least one or more years. The fact that these clinics have been well patronised during their existence and during the epidemic is an effective answer to those who might maintain that the people are unaware of them. There are also three clinics for schoolchildren: one at North Canal Road, another at Katong and a third at Paya Lebar. Five thousand schoolchildren attended these clinics up to yesterday. Instead of the criticisms appearing in the Press and such harebrained suggestions like sending loudspeakers to Chinatown at a time when Government medical services were working at full pressure, had members of the public emulated the splendid example of Mr Richard Lim in organising a special voluntary medical service station at Pearl's Hill community centre and now at Serangoon, it would have served a much better purpose. One sneeze in Chinatown by any person affected in such congested conditions as exist there would result in widespread prevalence. A loudspeaker would only cause more panic and give opportunities to thugs and quacks to make capital out of it, it is, of course, a matter for regret that the outbreak of influenza did cause economic damage and distress to many but I must emphasise that it was absolutely unavoidable and the hazards and distress posed could be likened to a common cold of equal incidence. About nine days ago, I stated that the disease had reached the peak and was expected to decline soon. This was evident by the daily reports and the graphs of new and repeat cases. Today, I am happy to say that the anticipation of the Ministry of Health has been correct, that the disease is well on its way out and I understand that it is unlikely that a person who has been attacked with influenza virus is likely to be attacked again in the same epidemic.

Will the Minister state why the radio was not fully used in the early stages of the epidemic to tell the public in simple language what to do and how to treat themselves so as to reduce the pressure on the Government hospitals and the clinics?

As far as I am aware, the first opportunity to use the radio was taken.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister informed us that there is no known cure against influenza and that whatever medicine the doctors could dispense would be in the form of aspirin. Why was not aspirin made available to the people of Singapore? A patient going to the hospital-

Order. Was that a supplementary question?

Yes, Sir. I have a series of them.

I have stated that there is no known cure for the disease but such things as aspirin, A.P.C., Veganin and codeine are all palliatives and they were made available at the outdoor dispensaries and every clinic in Singapore.

Is the Minister aware, Sir, that a patient going to the hospital may have to wait from morning until quite late in the afternoon, say about four o'clock, five o'clock or even six o'clock before he gets attended to whereas if these medicines were made available, he would then not be subjected to paying high prices to the thugs and quacks as stated?

Is the Minister aware that the death certificates of the three deceased persons mentioned by him were signed by a police constable and is he again aware that the police constable had no medical qualification to ascertain the cause of the deaths?

I would like to know where the hon. Member got this information from. These islands are visited by the doctors and the hospital assistants and they are perfectly aware of what the patients are suffering from. The death certificates are done after their diagnosis supervision.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister's goodwill visit to Japan probably has brought back this virus but he must have learned what steps the Japanese had taken when he was in Japan. There was an outbreak there, and furthermore he must have learned what steps they have taken in Hongkong too and I hope that at least Singapore should be benefited in the way of knowing what other countries are doing instead of a just empty goodwill.

If the Member for Serangoon understands English perfectly, I just said that there is no known preventive against the disease. It is no good kidding the public. If there was a preventive like issuing masks and so forth, we would have done it willingly to factory workers and others but I said that there is no known preventive.

"to amend the Licences Ordinance (Chapter 222 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Acting Chief Secretary (Mr S. T. Stewart); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 19th June, 1957, and to be printed.

"to amend the Second-hand Dealers Ordinance (Chapter 200 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Acting Chief Secretary (Mr S. T. Stewart); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 19th June, 1957, and to be printed.

"to dispense with the revision in 1957 of registers of electors for electoral divisions of the Island of Singapore for purposes of elections under the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance (Chapter 53 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Acting Chief Secretary (Mr S. T. Stewart); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 19th June, 1957, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.58 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to proceed with this Bill. I beg to move, Sir, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a relatively short Bill and the purpose is fully explained in the Explanatory Note attached to the Bill. In passing, Sir, I have to mention that, owing to an error in drafting, the "Republic of Northern Ireland" is mentioned in the Note; the word "Northern" should, of course, be omitted. Sir, under the Consular Conventions Ordinance, (Chapter 264), this Government has already granted representatives of certain foreign powers certain immunities and privileges in accordance with international practice, but at present there is no law under which similar diplomatic privileges and immunities may be granted to representatives of Commonwealth countries. Up to the present, these have been granted by administrative action and it is now proposed to rectify this by means of this Bill. This Bill before the House follows closely the Federation of Malaya Diplomatic Privileges (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Ordinance which was passed in 1956, and the provisions in the Consular Conventions Ordinance, (Chapter 264), regarding immunities and remission of taxes, charges, duties and fees to foreign consular representatives in Singapore. The provisions of the Bill apply at present to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon, but provision is made for extension by order of the Governor in Council to other countries, being (a) countries within the Commonwealth; or (b) the Republic of Ireland. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.

11.00 a.m. Clauses 1 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, without Amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.04 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the main purpose of this Bill is to amend the section of the Divorce Ordinance which prescribes the grounds on which a petition for divorce may be presented to the court. I think, Sir, that Members of this Assembly will have seen from the first paragraph of the Explanatory Note which is appended to the copy of the Bill which is in their hands that at the present time, one of the grounds on which a party to a marriage may institute proceedings for divorce is that the other party to the marriage is incurably of unsound mind and has been continuously under care and treatment for a period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. This care and treatment, Sir, must, under the existing law, be within the jurisdiction - it must be within the Colony - and it is clear, therefore, that hardship may occur where a party to a marriage is under care and treatment outside the jurisdiction. The Government accordingly considers it desirable that the Divorce Ordinance should be amended so that cases of hardship of this kind may be avoided. Accordingly, Sir, clause 2 of the Bill is designed to allow divorce proceedings to be instituted in Singapore where a party to a marriage is undergoing care and treatment in a country outside the Colony, provided that the court is satisfied that he is receiving care and treatment according to standards which are substantially the same as those obtaining in respect of the care and treatment of patients suffering from mental illness in the Colony. I think, Sir, that Members will have observed from the second paragraph of the Explanatory Note that the form of amendment which is now proposed follows the principle of the amendment recently recommended in England by the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, where the law on this point corresponds to the law in Singapore. There is, I think, Sir, only one other point to which I should refer in moving this Second Reading, and that is the quite separate amendment which is proposed by clause 3. That amendment restores the word "nisi" in the section of the Ordinance empowering the court to pronounce a decree of dissolution of marriage. That word was omitted when the 1936 Edition was amended in 1941 and was not restored when the 1955 Edition - the present Revised Edition - was prepared. I think there is nothing useful which I can add to what I have said, Sir, and accordingly I now beg to move that this Bill be read a Second time.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.

11.08 a.m. Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, without Amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.10 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the consent of His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government to proceed with this Bill and I beg to move, "That the Bill be read a Second time." Sir, under the present Pineapple Industry Ordinance an advisory body known as the Pineapple Joint Industrial Council was set up on a pan-Malayan basis to advise both the Governments of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya on all matters affecting the pineapple industry, but the executive functions of registering pineapple canneries were vested in Registrars appointed in each territory by the respective Governments, and inspection of these canneries was made by inspectors jointly appointed by both the Governments. The present Pineapple Joint Industrial Council has power to negotiate agreements on prices and grades of pineapples for sale to canneries, to regulate the production, grading and marketing of canned pineapples, and to make recommendations to both Governments on other matters affecting the industry. The present Bill, Sir, proposes that a statutory Board should be set up on a pan-Malayan basis by identical legislation in both territories to replace the present Joint Industrial Council, and that this Board should be given executive powers on all matters affecting the industry. The Board, when constituted, will take over the present functions of the Pineapple Joint Industrial Council and the powers of registering canneries now vested in the Registrars appointed in each territory by the respective Governments, and would, in addition, be empowered to conduct research into the cultivation and processing of pineapples and their by-products, to register canners, can suppliers, exporters and marketing societies, and to issue a certificate of registration in respect of each cannery owned by a registered canner (persons aggrieved by refusal to register being enabled to appeal to a Tribunal), to register a distinguishing mark or marks for the product of each or all of the registered canneries, to employ staff including a chief executive officer and a pineapple inspectorate, and to enforce discipline in the industry. In order to enforce discipline, an executive committee is to be established and if this committee finds any person registered under the Ordinance guilty of contravening or failing to comply with the provisions of the Ordinance and the regulations made by the Board, the committee is empowered under clause 23 (a), (b) and (c) to cancel his registration or to impose a fine not exceeding $10,000, or to order costs payable to the Board not exceeding $1,000. It may impose all or any one or two of these punishments, and persons who are aggrieved can appeal to a Tribunal set up under clause 24 of the Bill to which I shall refer later. Canners, can suppliers, growers and exporters will be required to belong to an association to be notified in the Government Gazette as representative of the canning, can supplying, marketing and exporting branches of the pineapple industry before they are eligible for registration. But in order to prevent a monopoly, no association can be specified by the Board by notification in the Gazette as a representative association unless it freely permits the admission of a member on his complying with the articles and rules of the association, and unless the rules of the association are not prejudicial to the interests of the pineapple industry and are first approved by the Board. Representative associations which are specified by the Board by notification in the Gazette will be empowered to appoint members to the Board. The power of the Registrar under the existing Ordinance to refuse to register a cannery, on the ground that there already exists a sufficient number of pineapple canneries, has not been given to the Board, and therefore it will be impossible for a limit to be set to the number of registered canneries on this ground. Although there is provision for the registration of marketing societies in the Bill, these societies, whether they are in the form of smallholders' associations or growers' co-operatives, are not to be subjected to the disciplinary powers of the executive committee because the purpose of requiring the registration of marketing societies is only to enable financial assistance to be given to them by the Board, and, except for registration, the other provisions of the Ordinance do not apply to these registered marketing societies. As I said earlier, Sir, there is provision, under clause 24, for appeals to a Tribunal and the appeal can be (a) from the decisions of the executive committee cancelling registrations or imposing a fine or ordering the payment of costs; (b) from the refusal of the Board to effect registration of canners. Exporters, can suppliers or marketing societies; and (c) from the refusal of the Board to approve the articles and rules of a representative association. Power is given to the Minister for Commerce and Industry, on the recommendation of the Board, to impose a cess or cesses on the export of canned pineapple, the proceeds of which will he paid into a Pineapple Industry Fund to be established under the Ordinance. The cost of administering the industry and maintaining an inspectorate, as well as the cost of organising agronomic, processing and market research, will be met from this Fund. The Pineapple Industry Ordinance (Chapter 180) is to be repealed but the provisions of this Ordinance relating to the Pineapple Joint Industrial Council will be kept in force for so long as it is necessary for this Council to discharge its liabilities, if any, and until it is able to transfer its functions to the Board. As the Explanatory Note points out, the amendments proposed in this Bill have been discussed in and approved by the Pineapple Joint Industrial Council which at present advises both Governments on all matters affecting the Malayan pineapple industry. Members of this House will be aware that an identical Bill was enacted by the Federal Legislative Council at its meeting on 8th May, 1957, together with an amendment to clause 24 (1) which I shall move in Committee stage later. Sir, you will see from the Comparative Table attached to the Bill that the amendments proposed are to a very great extent modelled on the existing provisions of the Rubber Shipping and Packing Control Ordinance (Chapter 183), and that these proposals are therefore not new. Regulations made by the Board to carry into effect the objects of the Ordinance have to be approved by the Governor in Council. This Bill does not involve Government in any financial expenditure. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I move, That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.

11.18 a.m. Clauses 1 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9-

Mr Minister, the last few lines of clause 9 read: "... shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or to both such fine and imprisonment." I was wondering whether you would prefer those words, "fine" and "imprisonment", transposed. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy indicated assent.

That will be done when the Bill is reprinted. Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 10 to 23 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 24-

Sir, I move, In page 13, line 33: to leave out "holding or who has held high judicial office" and insert "qualified to be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of the Colony or of the Federation of Malaya under the law for the time being in force in the Colony or in the Federation of Malaya, as the case may be,". The reason, Sir, is that it is possible we may find it difficult to get a person who does hold or has held high judicial office to be the chairman. Amendment agreed to. Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, with an Amendment.

11.25 a.m.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I move, "That the Bill, as amended, be now read the Third time."

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly read the Third time.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.26 a.m. The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The main purpose of the Bill which is before the House today is to enable seamen to enjoy the benefits of the Central Provident Fund Ordinance. The definition of "employee" in the present Ordinance does not include those who venture beyond territorial waters unless its interpretation is substantially strained. There is no reason why seamen should be excluded from the provisions of the Ordinance and hon. Members will note that this Bill brings seamen within its scope by amending the definition of "employee" to include a master, seaman or apprentice employee on a vessel the owners of which have a place of business in Singapore or have their agents here. The opportunity has been taken to rectify certain defects in the present Ordinance which make administration difficult. Most of these are trivial but there are three, Sir, to which I should like to draw the attention of hon. Members. The first is the amendment of the definition of "employee" by deleting the reference to a waiting period of three months and inserting in section 7, where it more properly belongs, a provision to the effect that the employer shall pay contributions to the Fund in respect of each employee who has worked for the employer for a period of not less than one month. The experience of the Central Provident Fund Board has been that a waiting period of three months leads to non-compliance with the Ordinance, and that unscrupulous employers keep employees for just under three months and then dismiss them. I would point out that the Federation Ordinance limits the waiting period to one month. The second is the amendment to section 14 of the Ordinance so as to provide that on the death of a contributor the money shall be paid directly to a person or persons nominated by the contributor in his lifetime for the beneficial use of those persons, instead of, as at present, to a trustee or trustees. It has been apparent to the Central Provident Fund Board for some time that the conception of a trustee is a matter of difficulty even for the educated layman, and it is not at all understood by the generality of contributors, who mistrust the arrangement. Further, Sir, the actual recipient of the contributor's money is completely ignorant of his duties as a trustee, and although the Board does its best to advise a trustee recipient, the position is not satisfactory. There is no legal value or safeguard in the present arrangement and it is thought that the contributor should be enabled to dispose of his money to selected individuals. The third, Sir, is the amendment of section 7A to increase the interest charged on late contributions from one-half per cent per month to one per cent per month with a minimum of one dollar. It is considered that the old rate is too low. Hon. Members will realise that late payment means a delay in investing the monies received into the Fund and the Board must be compensated realistically if the members of the Fund are not to suffer. The charge also must be high enough to cover the administrative cost of collection. The remaining amendments are designed to improve the administration of the Fund and to remove one or two ambiguities. I shall not go into them in detail as they are explained in the Explanatory Note at the end of the Bill. Hon. Members will note that clause 1 makes provision for the Bill to come into effect on 1st June. The main reason for this is that the Bill benefits a new class of employees - the seamen - and that it provides additional benefits to a great number of employees whose work is of a temporary nature by reducing the waiting period from three months to one month. I am sure, Sir, that this House will agree with me that there is no justification for delaying these overdue reforms. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 11.31 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when notice was given of the introduction of this amending Bill, the Liberal-Socialist Party expected that an injustice perpetrated by the Government in this Bill was about to be removed. Certain improvements have been made, but the one that really matters has remained untouched. The House will remember that the Central Provident Fund Ordinance was rushed through on a Certificate of Urgency on the 29th of June, 1955, and put into operation two days later at a time when we were all new to the work of the Legislature. It was lauded to the skies by the Minister for Labour and Welfare as a great piece of social legislation. But the implication of one section remained undetected in the haste of pushing the Ordinance through all its Readings on the same day without the public having a chance to consider it, and the iniquity of it has only come to light in recent months. Indeed, it is even doubtful whether it can stand the interpretation put upon it by the Central Provident Fund Board, but in failing to amend it, the Government has given full backing to this iniquity. Or rather, I should say that there is an amendment before us but acting against the interests of the contributors. I refer to section 11(2) of the principal Ordinance - whether you read it there or in the amended form in clause 9 before us today. Let me read it, Sir, in the form in which it is proposed to amend it now: "The Board shall cause to be credited to each member of the Fund the amount of every contribution paid in his respect and, immediately upon the declaration by the Board under subsection (3) of section 6 of this Ordinance of a rate of interest for the preceding year, interest at that rate on the amount standing to his credit in the Fund at the commencement of such preceding year in such manner as the Board may direct;". That means - this is what the Government wishes it to mean - that the Board will only pay interest on the amount in the contributor's account on the 1st of January of each year, and will not pay any interest on the next 12 months' contributions. In other words, the Board has the whole of the contributions to the Provident Fund for 12 months duly invested without giving any proportion of the current year's interest to the persons to whom the money belongs. Sir, we cannot accept this position which seems to us not only unfair but contrary to the intentions of the Ordinance. It would perhaps be more convenient if I go into the implications in greater detail at the Committee stage, and so at the moment I only bring the matter to the attention of the Members of the House. 11.34 a.m. Mr Lim Yew Hock rose-

Mr Minister, in reply?

Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed amused to be told that the interpretation of the Provident Fund Board in regard to section 11(2) is an injustice perpetrated by the Government. The Central Provident Fund Board, Sir, is an independent body. It was set up under the Central Provident Fund Ordinance to operate the Ordinance and it can fully exercise the powers conferred upon it by the Ordinance. The Government does not interfere nor does it give any directions. The hon. Member was not right when he said that this Government rushed the Bill through. I thought that the Progressive Party, which has now been embraced by the Liberal-Socialist Party, would want to claim credit for the introduction of that Bill. What the Government did in, I think, June 1955 was to amend the Schedule to the Ordinance so that any employee who draws less than $200 need not have to contribute to the Fund, whereas his employer will in duty bound be asked to donate five per cent. That was only what the Labour Front Coalition Government did. Sir, section 11 of the Ordinance has been interpreted by the Central Provident Fund Board in such a way that clause 9 of the Bill now seeks to remove the ambiguity. Sir, I think it is wrong to say that there is any attempt at cheating the contributors. The money is a trust fund held in trust for them. Whatever money is not distributed to the contributors by way of interest will still be kept in the fund for further distribution. Sir, this matter came to light as a result of a newspaper article. It was suggested by that newspaper article what the hon. Member now seeks to amend, but it was pointed out by the Chairman of the Central Provident Fund Board that it would of course be open to the Board to direct that interest should be paid in the manner suggested in the article, and in the manner sought by the amendment. The adoption of this suggestion, Sir, would mean that after each year's end some two and a half million separate interest calculations would need to be made, as the Board is not empowered to decide the interest rate until after the end of the year. This vast calculation would be possible but at a cost in time and labour which would be out of all proportion to the amount of the interest involved. Indeed, Sir, in the long run the increased cost of administration would in fact reduce the total amount of interest available for distribution to contributors. What the Central Provident Fund Board seeks to do is to try to protect the interests of the contributors and not to spend money indiscriminately in increasing administration costs. The Member for Tanglin, Sir, said he would have more to speak about this during the Committee stage, and I, Sir, would like to speak a little bit more too at the Committee stage when he raises the matter again.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I move, That this Assembly will immediately re solve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.

11.40 a.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill Clause 2-

Mr Minister, in sub-clause (1) (a) there is the expression "expressed or implied". I recollect that when the Clerks Employment Bill was considered, the expression used there was "express or implied".

Yes, Sir, in this instance it should also have been "express or implied".

That will be amended as a typographical error. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5- Amendment made: In page 4, line 29, to leave out the fullstop and insert a semi-colon. - [Mr Lim Yew Hock].

Sir, I move, In page 4, line 42, to leave out "(2)" and insert "(3)". This is a drafting error, Sir.

There are, I notice, two other similar amendments, Mr Minister.

Yes, Sir. Amendment agreed to. Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 44, to leave out "(3)" and insert "(4)". -[Mr Lim Yew Hock]. In page 5, line 4, to leave out "(2) and (3)" and insert "(3) and (4)". [Mr Lim Yew Hock]. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8- Amendments made: In page 6, line 25, to leave out "(2)" and insert "(3)". - [Mr Lim Yew Hock]. In page 6, line 40, after "Fund", to insert "and". - [Mr Lim Yew Hock].

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, In page 6, lines 42 to 43, to leave out "and provided further that any" and insert "but no". This is a drafting improvement.

The next amendment, Mr Minister, is connected?

Yes, Sir. Amendment agreed to. Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 3, to leave out "not". [Mr Lim Yew Hock]. Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 11.45 a.m. Clause 9-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 8, lines 25 to 28, to leave out from "amount" to the end and insert "of every contribution paid in his respect from the date of receipt of every such contribution:". As I said just now, Sir, the sub-clause as it stands means that the Board will only pay interest on the amount in the contributor's account on the 1st of January of each year and will not pay any interest on the next 12 months' contributions. I have my own statement of account in the Central Provident Fund Board with me here. On the 1st of January, 1956, the amount in my account was $250. On the 31st of December, 1956, the amount was $900, but the interest earned is two and a half per cent on $250 only, namely, $6.25, making the total amount in my account on the 1st of January this year $906.

25. Now if my contributions and those of my employer had been put in the Post Office Savings Bank each month in 1956, so that the two and a half per cent interest would run from the date of paying in each contribution, the amount in my account would be more than $906.25 by something like $8. Let me carry the argument one step further to make this situation still clearer. As I have said, my account stood at $906.25 on the 1st of January this year. It will be this sum which will earn two and a half per cent seven months from now on the 31st of December, 1957. In other words, the $50 per month which is being paid into my account by my employer each month of this year is bringing me no interest whatever, but is being invested by the Board at something like six or seven per cent. And this goes for every single one of the thousands of compulsory contributors to the Fund, most of them much more in need of the extra interest, which is their right, than I am. This Ordinance, as it stands, compels the people of Singapore to lose valuable savings in comparison with what they could get from the Post Office. That is why we propose this amendment. The Central Provident Fund Board holds to the contention that it is protected by section 6 (3) of the principal Ordinance which reads: "Interest shall be payable on contributions to the Fund at such rate per annum, not being less than two and one half per centum, as the Board may declare after and in respect of each year ending on the thirty-first day of December:". The Board's interpretation of the word "annum" with reference to the interest rate apparently precludes the application of the interest provisions to sums which have not been in the hands of the Board for one whole year - that is, whether a contribution is paid in on the 15th of January or the 15th of December, it is not entitled to interest. I do not think that this argument can be supported. If the Board were to invest any of its own funds at six per cent per annum, it would feel considerably aggrieved if the borrower repaid the Board its capital without interest 364 days later and contended that "annum" meant "year". This interpretation of the word "annum" makes meaningless the proviso to subsection (2) of section 11 of the principal Ordinance which reads as follows: "Provided that where the authority of the Board is granted under section 12 of this Ordinance for the withdrawal from the Fund of any sum of money standing to the credit of an employee, the amount of interest due from the first day of January of the year in which such authority is given to the date upon which it is given shall be calculated at two and one half per centum per annum and credited to the employee before such withdrawal notwithstanding that the rate of interest subsequently declared by the Board in respect of that year may be greater than two and one half per centum per annum." To say that in the case of withdrawals interest will be made at not more than two and a half per cent from the 1st of January until the date of withdrawal, when you have already ordained that such interest is not payable, is of course sheer nonsense: yet here we have a Labour Front Coalition Government seeking in this amending Bill to retain this proviso and yet not to amend the subsection to allow interest to accrue from the date of each contribution. This makes no sense at all. The argument which the Board puts up, to which the Chief Minister has referred, is that the cost of administration would be too high. We on this side of the House are not prepared to accept that unless we are supplied with facts and figures to support it. It is common knowledge that the Board is investing its funds at six or seven per cent, whereas it is paying out interest at only two and a half per cent. When on top of that the Board is acquiring for itself considerable capital interest-free, a proper explanation from the Minister is clearly called for. I hope that we shall be told what income at, say, a minimum of six per cent is received on the contributions paid in during one calendar year and how this compares with the cost of administering the Fund. The balances already accumulated should be enough to pay for the extra administrative costs, if the General Post Office can do it in the case of post-office savings, why not the Central Provident Fund Board? Now the Government will probably try to answer that the Board intends to do better than the Post Office and raise the interest rate to three per cent when allowed to do so under section 6 (3) (b) of the principal Ordinance, which reads: "the Board shall not declare a rate of interest exceeding two and a half per centum per annum until the assets of the Fund valued at the current market price exceed its liabilities by ten per centum;"; but that is one of the airy promises of the future. Who is to know that once the condition in this paragraph is fulfilled, there will be enough excuses put forward that three per cent cannot be entertained because the funds will no longer be invested in six per cent, or the cost of living has gone up, or some such else? Whatever the excuse, the fact remains that all the contributors to the Fund have been denied the interest on their 1956 contributions and their 1957 contributions to date, to which they were entitled under this Ordinance as it was originally drafted: and that the Board and the Government are hiding behind the phrase in section 11 (2) of the principal Ordinance "in such manner as the Board may direct". That is a dangerous phrase which gives far too much power to a statutory corporation and enables it to snap its fingers at the public and the Legislature. The Board should act as trustees for their contributors and the Government must see to it, if they are to justify the compulsory savings scheme in the eyes of thousands of working people, that the terms offered are at least as good as those offered by the Post Office, and for the first two years the people have been forced to contribute to something which is less good.

Mr Chairman, Sir, one would feel that what the Member for Tanglin has said is as a result of what the Labour Front Coalition Government has done. I said on the Second Reading that this Bill was being claimed by the then Progressive Party as their masterpiece in the interests of the workers of Singapore. I sat on the Select Committee on the Bill not as a Member of the Progressive Party but as a Member of the Labour Party, and as the Member for Tanglin was not there on the Select Committee, he is therefore not aware that this matter was discussed at some considerable length and the decision arrived at was that we should try out the operation of this new venture and leave it to the Central Provident Fund Board, which would be entrusted with the running of this Fund, to discharge its responsibilities under the provisions of the law. It is easy, Sir, to say that more and more money should be paid to contributors, but the Board has to pay the money out of interest earned as a result of investments and it can only pay out of its profits. There is a guarantee of two and a half per cent and to date the Board has been operating on a deficit. At the beginning of 1956, I am informed that the deficit was $540,996. At the beginning of 1956 the total contributions amounted to $9,075,065, whereas at the close of the year the amount standing to the credit of contributions was $34 million. As a result of the operation during the year 1956, the net profit earned was $332,329, and on the basis of payment of interest as decided upon by the Board, this would mean a distribution of $223,005, leaving a balance of $109,324 to reduce the opening deficit of $540,996. The deficit as at the beginning of this year is therefore $431,672. I am informed that the Board hopes that by the end of this year this deficit will have been totally reduced so that in later years the interest to be paid on contributions, even on the basis of what the Board has decided, will be more than two and a half per cent. It is not correct to say that it was wrong for the Board to be given such wide powers. The powers are given to the Board and it can only exercise them within certain restrictions, and those powers and those restrictions were in the principal Ordinance - the product of the Progressive Party. If the amendment proposed by the Member for Tanglin is to be accepted, as I said on the Second Reading, Sir, it will mean extra clerical assistance at least to work out two and a half million accounts. 12 Noon. If at each stage of the contribution interest is to be paid on that basis, we know that the money that comes into the Fund from the employers does not come in at the beginning of the month, but it keeps on coming in during the course of the month: and employers have up to 21 days to remit the money to the Central Provident Fund Board before they become liable for interest. Now if one were to stretch what is being sought by the amendment, it would not only mean two and a half million accounts, but it would mean very, very much more. Is this worth it in the interests of the contributors concerned? The money is in a trust fund. It is their money. No one can take it away. The Government has no right to take it away. It is vested in the Central Provident Fund Board which has discretion to use that Fund in the interests of the contributors. In the light of what I have explained, Sir, I find it difficult to accept the amendment.

Mr Chairman, Sir, credit was given to the Progressive Party for bringing forth this Bill, and I think if it had been taken through by the Progressive Party then you would have to give it greater credit, because that Party never acted on impulses. It would probably have given a great deal of thought to those clauses which the Member, who sat on the Select Committee as a representative of the Labour Party and who is now the Minister for Labour and Welfare, has overlooked as being not important. They would have had a thorough investigation. I cannot agree with the statement by the Minister that if the contributors were to be paid more money, then more and more money would have to be paid to them. I say they must be paid - it is their right; it is their money; it is not our money. If we make a profit on it, we are making a profit on the money contributed by a section of the people whom we say we are out to protect. The figures which the Minister has given are most interesting. The Board operates on a deficit of $540,996. Sir, sometimes when we have a little bit of money to spare, we bring it to the Post Office and they accept it and immediately credit us with three per cent interest. If we have more money to spare, we go along to a bank and the banker says. "Yes, we welcome your money on a three-month or a six-month basis, and we will pay you three and a half per cent." If we pay that money in on a current account with some banks, we will still get some interest on that money. We can deposit and draw out the money as we like. There must be a lot of clerical work involved, and yet commercial firms seem to be able to do much better. It gives me the feeling that whatever Board the Government sets up, is always run inefficiently. If the Government wants to run it on a very economical basis, I suggest it would be best to deposit every account in the Post Office Savings Bank, and there you are, you save all your clerical work. The Post Office Savings Bank will give you three per cent. The Central Provident Fund Board is giving the contributors only two and a half per cent. 1956 is a very interesting year. The Board had a net profit of $332,000. That money was money earned by the Board from the money deposited by the people, and to put it away and not give it to the poor people - those earning under $200 a month pay no contributions at all - and say, "I will save it up for you," is, I think, open to query. I ask, "Save it up for whom? Save it up for the Government to invest in other things so that it has more money to play about with." What little money the people contribute should bring them the maximum amount of interest. The Government should not take advantage of forcing people to pay into their Fund and make money out of it. That is absolutely wrong. Then there is the excuse that if you are going to pay them as they deposit the money, you will have extra clerical work. I cannot understand how that can hold water. If you operate a small number of accounts, you need less clerical work, but you have less business, you have less money to invest, and you have less profits. But if you have a large number of accounts, you operate a big concern and you can cut down overhead expenses, if the argument were to be true that if you have a big organisation and you cannot pay more, but you must pay less because it involves greater clerical work, then all the big businesses should fail. You must open up small shops all over Singapore and you will make much more money than the big firms. But that is not the case. Usually we find big businesses swallowing up small ones because they can cut down on overhead expenses. It is not a good argument to say that if extra clerical work has to be called in, the net result will be less profits. The Post Office Savings Bank can do that. The banks can do that. The insurance companies can do that with even a lesser volume of business. Why cannot a Government body do that? The wide powers referred to in the amendment is opposed by the Government on the ground that it is the product of the Progressive Party. I would like to remind the Government that even with the Education Bill and many other Bills placed before this House during the last sitting we are against such wide powers. This is a democratic country. We do not want to produce dictators. I think those persons who are going to handle business for the people must be servants of the people and given just sufficient powers and not over-riding powers. Sir, I support the amendment moved by my colleague.

Mr Chairman, Sir, a little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing! What I said, Sir, was not to ridicule the Progressive Party for having introduced the Bill. I gave them due credit. I said this is their Bill. It is a good Bill. If it had been a bad Bill, the Labour Front Coalition Government would not have put it into operation, but what we did was to improve the Bill by not asking people drawing up to $200 to contribute. That was all, and that was introduced because of opposition worked up by people whose line of reasoning had been the same as that expressed by the Member for Serangoon: the Government is cheating the people; the Government is using this money for its own good. What is all this? If you want to pay interest, you have to pay it with the money you have earned, even in a business venture where you earn very much more than from investing in gilt-edged securities. When you begin a business, you will not be able to pay handsome dividends for the first few years. In the same way, the Central Provident Fund Board cannot pay interest which can be attractive to contributors. It was because of that that the Progressive Party felt that there should be a guarantee of two and a half per cent. Had there been no such guarantee at all, hon. Members would certainly have realised that it could not be two and a half per cent interest at all for still some time to come. I gave a profit of $332,329. On that basis, paying interest at two and a half per cent on the total contributions at the beginning of 1956 will take away $223,005. If we were to pay it at the end of the year on $34,101,466, it would mean a deficit of $520,207. You will have to find $629,531 more in order to pay two and a half per cent on $34,101,466 at the end of 1956. If you work out two and a half per cent on $34,101,466, you will get a figure of $852,536. With only $332,329 profit there will be a deficit of $520,207 and this, if added to the deficit as at the beginning of 1956, would mean that the Board would be in the red for $1,061,203. That is all. The statement of accounts for 1956 will, I think, soon be tabled and when hon. Members see that statement, it will be time for them to criticise with the information which will be at their disposal. I do not know what the figures are other than those which I have given, and I suggest that the Member for Serangoon, before passing judgement on whether the Board has badly handled its work or has in fact handled it quite well, await the Report of the Central Provident Fund Board which should be in his hands in the not distant future.

Mr Chairman, I would like to point out to the Minister that this Bill, as he himself says, though originally drafted and passed by this House in 1955, is a good Bill, but the point is that it has been wrongly interpreted by the Central Provident Fund Board, and I think there are two points which bear this out. By wrong interpretation, I mean that it was understood, when the Bill was framed in 1953, that interest would be paid on contributions from the date of paying in those contributions and not only once a year on the 1st of January. I would draw the Minister's attention to section 6 (3) (a) of the principal Ordinance: "Interest shall be payable on contributions to the Fund at such rate per annum...: Provided that-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 9, lines 29 to 30, to leave out "appointed in accordance with" and insert "nominated under". Sir, subsection (5) which appears immediately above this uses the word "nominate", and the amendment proposed is to improve the drafting.

I take it the next two amendments. Mr Minister, are allied?

They are, Sir. Amendment agreed to. Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 45, to leave out "appointed in accordance with" and insert "nominated under".- [Mr Lim Yew Hock]. In page 10, line 4, to leave out "appointed" and insert "nominated"-[Mr Lim Yew Hock]. Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 13 to 20 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, with Amendments.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill, as amended, be now read the Third time."

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly the read Third time.

I think this is an appropriate time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.22 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the purpose of this Bill is to enable more effective action to be taken against the drivers and owners of private motor vehicles which are used as taxis although they are not licensed for that purpose. These vehicles, Sir, are, of course, commonly known as "pirate" taxis and they undoubtedly operate in Singapore in considerable numbers. The Commission of Inquiry into the Public Passenger Transport System of Singapore which reported in January 1956 had before it evidence that the total number of these taxis was of the order of 5,000 and there is no reason to suppose that the number is substantially lower today. Sir, I appreciate that to some members of the public, pirate taxis may appear to be a blessing rather than a menace as they have been described and I propose therefore to refer briefly to the case against it - the case which, in effect, justifies in the view of the Government the provisions of this Bill. That case was summarised in paragraph 385 of the Commission of Inquiry into the Public Passenger Transport System of Singapore and, with your permission, Sir, I would like to read that paragraph: "The operation of these 'pirate' taxis is in our view a practice which should be stamped out, it permits fares to be charged which would not be possible if the 'pirate' taxis paid their proper licence fees. It can undermine the finances of the public services, and in the end result in poorer services for those who rely upon them. It takes business away from the taxis proper, which are regularly inspected and properly licensed. It involves the carriage of passengers without insurance cover, for the insurance policy is invalid in the case of accidents which occur when the vehicles are improperly used. It adds to congestion on the streets, because of the small carrying capacity of the vehicles compared with buses. And in any event it is illegal." Now, Sir, I think that hon. Members will probably agree that one of the most serious objections to the use of pirate taxis on the roads is the fact that their use is not covered by any form of insurance. In consequence, the only remedy left to persons, including the passengers in these vehicles, who may be injured in the event of an accident in which one of these vehicles may be involved is an action against the driver with no right of indemnity against any insurance company and, as a result, Sir, in such a case, the dependants of persons killed or injured in an accident of that kind may very well be left entirely destitute. Another factor is that it is the experience of the police that pirate taxis are frequently used by law-breakers because the tracing of a pirate taxi is, of course, often a very difficult matter. For these reasons, Sir, the authorities have always done what they can to take action to bring drivers of pirate taxis before the courts but they have been considerably hampered by reason of the difficulties they have experienced both in investigating particular cases and in producing evidence, in effect, in proving charges. At the same time, Sir, it does seem clear that the limitation on the number of taxis which may be licensed, which has only recently been lifted, was an important contributory cause of the activities of pirate taxis and it has therefore been the Government's view that any new legislation designed to make the control of pirate taxis more effective should only be introduced after this limit had been removed. As Members of the Assembly are, I think, generally aware, this has now been done. The limit on the number of vehicles which may be licensed as taxis has been, so to speak, abolished and, in consequence, Sir, the Government in introducing this Bill does so in the hope and, of course, with the intention that it will give the authorities the powers they require to suppress the activities of pirate taxis. For this purpose the Bill is designed to enable action to be taken against the owners of vehicles which are used as pirate taxis as well as against those who drive them and it provides for imprisonment in addition or as an alternative to a fine for second or subsequent convictions. That, Sir, is provided for by clause 2. Clause 3 contains the major part of the amendments which are now proposed to the Road Traffic Ordinance and the proposals which it makes, Sir, if they are adopted, will confer on the Registrar of Vehicles and on his officers, if they are in uniform, certain additional powers in cases where they have grounds for believing that a vehicle is being used as a taxi without being licensed for that purpose. These additional powers, Sir, include the power to arrest the driver if the Registrar suspects that the name and the address which he has given are false and the Bill also proposes to confer on the Registrar and his officers, if they are in uniform, and also to confer on any police officer in uniform, the power to arrest any person who appears to have been a passenger in a pirate taxi if that person refuses to give his name and address. This will, Sir, it is hoped ensure that their evidence will be available should it be required if proceedings are instituted against the driver or the owner of the vehicle. I have not much more to say, Sir, at this stage, but I would just summarise the position in this way. The Government takes the view that these additional provisions to deal with pirate taxis are the minimum necessary and I hope that that view will be shared generally by Members of this Assembly. It may be suggested that the Bill does not go far enough and that greatly enhanced penalties including perhaps the power to order the confiscation of vehicles should have been provided for. It is, however, the view of the Government that the primary object of this legislation should be to enable effective action to be taken against persons who operate unlicensed vehicles as taxis rather than to impose very heavy penalties. The Government, Sir, takes the view that the provisions of this Bill combined with the effects of delimitation will enable the activities of the pirate taxis to be very greatly reduced but if experience does show that this Bill does not go far enough, the Government will not hesitate to come back to this Assembly and to ask for further powers to be conferred on the appropriate authorities by legislation. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Government may introduce any number of Bills. Government may introduce all sorts of measures but Government cannot introduce a Bill to force co-operation. Co-operation must come willingly from the people and whatever Bill is to be introduced depends on the goodwill of the people concerned. In this matter, Government will have to do a great deal more to infuse confidence into the public and make them want to co-operate with the authorities. The existence of pirate taxis is an evil, not because it comes about of its own free will. It is created by our bad transport system. If our transport system had been good and if it had been convenient for everybody to travel by this means to their places of employment and homes, pirate taxis cannot exist: I should say that people would not even want to own private cars if the public transport system is good. I have been to London and I noticed that they have a good system of public transport. Even owners of cars do not make use of their cars but prefer to use public transport which is cheap and efficient. This evil is not because of anything else, but is due to Government being slow in making this public transport system efficient. Another cause for the existence of pirate taxis, I will say, stems from another fault of the Government - unemployment. Nobody in this world would want to go against the law if he can help it. Nobody would want to operate a pirate taxi knowing that operating it is against the law but when faced with the problem of starvation for himself and for his family because there is no job available, there is a Chinese saying that it is better to postpone death than to have immediate death. In this case, it is unemployment that has caused these pirate taxis to flourish. We must remember, Sir, that we are introducing this system in order to make the people of Singapore observe the law. We must be aware, Sir, that in Singapore there are people who operate such taxis because of necessity. It is wrong to do that. I do not say that it is right. These people need to have some time to find alternative jobs and Government must help them in this. A period of grace should be given to them so that they can find alternative jobs. I have heard that Government intends to delimit taxis but it will be interesting to know that delimiting taxis by the City Council on the advice of Government is carried out in a fair manner. It has come to my knowledge that it is not possible to obtain a new car from the car dealers. All new cars have been booked up - all cars that can be converted into taxis have been booked up by certain individuals.

By the Progressive Party.

It has been pointed out by many people outside this Assembly that huge profits have been made out of this. If this is a measure put forward by the Government to introduce new taxis and somebody is cashing in on it, well, something is definitely wrong. I think about it this way. You want to take away the pirate taxis and you want the owners to become legally licensed taxi owners. The way to go about it is not to say, "You must have a new car before you can be granted a licence." Why not allow existing cars to be registered? There is a certain standard which must be maintained and we can make them observe that standard: get their cars repaired to a state whereby it will be safe for the people. If this were to be implemented, then it would give a true chance to those people who are at present operating these pirate taxis to get licences for new taxis; but if the system of licensing taxis only when they come fresh from the salesroom is imposed this will only help unscrupulous individuals to corner the market, make the money and yet deny the chance of lawful employment to those people who are affected. If these people whom the Government is setting out to help are faced with such a problem, they are only again becoming drivers for new taxi owners. Government should think about this seriously and try to see if it could help. Of course, everything said about the pirate taxis may be true. They break the law, they take away revenue and they are not able to give compensation if they are involved in accidents, but I would like to remind Government that their help was called upon when there was that general transport strike. Whether such services rendered are to be taken into account, I do not know, but I think that if the Government is a fair one - one that thinks of the good a section of the population has done - then it should be taken into account and a period of grace should be given to these people. I personally feel that if old cars now being used as pirate taxis could be licensed, it will help immensely. 2.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a legislator, without any hesitation, I rise to support this Bill but as a representative of the people, I would wish the Government to consider my suggestions. Sir, the Explanatory Note reads: "The object of this Bill is to enable more effective action to be taken against the drivers and owners of motor vehicles which are used as taxis without a public service vehicle licence." It is straightforward and this Bill is intended to deal with the so-called "pirate" taxis. The Hon. the Attorney-General stated that not only do these pirate taxis break the law by not paying licence fees, but the important thing is that most of them are not covered by proper insurance. Therefore the passengers are not positively covered. Also, most of the pirate taxis have been used to break the law. I am sure that no hon. Member can deny these facts. Sir, let us trace the history of the existence of these pirate taxis. I cannot agree more with the Member for Serangoon when he just now mentioned that the existence of these pirate taxis was mainly due to mass unemployment. People find it hard to get a job, so they try to find an easier way. If there is a supply, there is a demand, and vice versa. There is a need for transport services, especially when there is a strike on by the buses. I still remember, Sir, during the Hock Lee riots and the strike by the Singapore Traction Company, that I suggested the relaxation of certain measures against the pirate taxis because, during that time, it could be said that our entire transport facilities had come to a stop and that the pirate taxis then rendered a valuable service. They were running in the most reasonable way. For example, I took three trips-

In a pirate taxi?

One from Robinson Road to Alexandra Road, for which I paid 50 cents; from Bras Basah Road to Serangoon Road, I paid 70 cents, and from Changi Market to Changi Point, I paid 50 cents. I think it was a wonderful service to the public during that period. Therefore there is a reason for their existence and they could render a valuable service, of course, at a time when we need such services but, of course, we do not hope to have a general transport strike every time. Sir, I would also remind the House that the rural population always rely on the pirate taxis for their transport which hon. Members who stay in town or who have their own cars may not realise. Sir, as an Assemblyman for the rural areas, I know quite well that the rural people find it hard to get a taxi especially when somebody is sick. They rely mostly on the five or ten pirate taxis run by the kampong folk. The operators of the pirate taxis are also kampong folk and they know one another very well. Therefore, when a member of the family is sick, they simply say, "Come on, I need you. Send us to the hospital or somewhere else." Therefore I would like to put forward this point for consideration - that in the rural areas, the existence of pirate taxis in many ways has become a necessity. As I understand it, Sir, at present, we have two types of taxis. One is what we know as taxis now, and the other with garage licences and the letters on their licence plates. Although these cars with the letters "SZ" on their licence plates are private cars, the main purpose, as I learned, is to allow Service personnel to make use of them, but, as a matter of fact, these licensed cars which are supposed to be reserved for Service personnel are usually used by the public as well. Therefore, since the Service personnel have a special privilege, why can we not consider another system for the service of the rural residents too? Poor people mostly stay in the rural areas and they have no cars. They need a quick and cheap means of transport and the pirate taxis can serve that purpose. So if we have taxis with the letters "SZ" on their licence plates, why can we not create another class of transport to be made available for the rural folk in the most convenient and economical way? We can register all those pirate taxis running in the rural areas, especially those stationed in kampongs, reduce the fare and also reduce some of the so-called checks on the vehicles, like a change of vehicles after three or five years, and so on, which the rural people cannot afford. So my suggestion is that we should give consideration to the rural area pirate taxi-runners and try to find a way to settle the problem in the light of a long-term policy. They know that they are breaking the law and they know that they will be punished if they are caught but they are forced to do so because of unemployment. The second point I want to touch upon is that as soon as this Bill has been passed - it is now going through its Second Reading and I am sure that it will pass its Third Reading - new and unlimited taxi licences will be issued. Sir, although I do not agree with the views contained in an anonymous letter which I received since I pressed for the setting up of an Anti-Corruption Inquiry Commission, I received several complaints about the issue of new taxi licences. To demonstrate the true democratic spirit, limitation in the number of taxi licences to be issued should be decided by the taxi-drivers themselves. Public opinion is now divided. Some say that the taxi-drivers are fighting very hard against the delimitation of taxi licences. Others say, "No, that is not true. They are only influenced by a few remnants with the support of capitalists. They sell their own taxis and now they want to try and make their money back." So there is a controversy about the issue of new taxi licences. Why cannot the Government take a stand to call all registered taxi licensees to attend a meeting and take a decision? That is the easiest and most democratic way. Some of the registered licensed taxi-drivers want more taxi licences to be issued. Others say, "No, we do not want that. At present, we find it very hard to make enough money." My suggestion I think, will clear up a lot of misunderstandings, rumours, allegations of corrupt practice, and so on. Sir, as a legislator, I am bound by duty to support the Bill to allow the Government to institute law and order but, as a representative of the rural people, I hope that the Government will consider the few points I have raised, especially the issue of new licences and the calling of a general meeting of all taxi-drivers to take a decision democratically. 3.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a small point to mention. If the Government were to agree to allow these alleged pirate taxis to be licensed as legal taxis, there naturally will be periodical examination for mechanical defects. What I would wish to plead is that when they hold the examination, it should not be spiteful.

Mr Speaker, Sir, of all the speeches I have heard in this Assembly this afternoon, there was one which was one of the most ambiguous speeches ever made. The Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) claims that he is fully aware that pirate taxis are illegal and yet he encourages the running of pirate taxis. I really cannot understand it. In one instance-

On a point of order, Sir. I have not said that I supported the pirate taxis. I only wish the Government would consider the creation of another class of licensed taxis.

It is not a point of order. It is a point of explanation.

I am fully conscious he did not say that he supported the pirate taxis but I said that he encouraged the running of pirate taxis. In the first instance, when he opened his speech, he said that he supported this Bill and he went on further to say that this pirate taxi trade was of benefit to the people because it provided cheaper fares. As a Member of this Assembly, he is fully aware that pirate taxis are illegal, but he himself has travelled in and encouraged the running of pirate taxis. I cannot really understand, Sir. It is not a question of whether you get cheaper fares or whether it is convenient or inconvenient to get a taxi. The question is one of law and we must, as Members of this Assembly, stick to the law. He himself claims to be a legislator of all legislation and yet he comes to this Assembly to say, "I think that it is beneficial to the public and that we should co-operate with them." The thing is this. In asking the Government to create another class of taxis, I think the Member is fully aware that there is already another class under the serial of "SZ" and if anybody wants to run pirate taxis legally, he could apply to the Registrar of Vehicles for that serial of "SZ". There is no question of any limitation on "SZ" at all. I can not understand that a man who claims himself as a legislator could come here and speak otherwise. 3.03 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry that the Member for Serangoon is not in the House at this moment. He told us that the pirate taxis were created because of the bad transport system prevailing in Singapore and he said, "This evil is due to the reason that the Government is slow in making public transport efficient." Sir, I am inclined to use certain words which I am afraid you will not permit me to use but I must say that this statement is far from the truth. Firstly, up to very recently, the public transport system was not under the control of the Government at all. It was entirely under the control of the City Council - a City Council dominated by the Liberal-Socialist Party.

Nonsense.

Of course. Pirate taxis are not only the result of the bad transport system of Singapore. Pirate taxis are the result of the policy of a Liberal-Socialist City Council which kept the vested interests of those who held taxis of paramount importance against the needs of the country. Sir, this city has grown in population and in size. Suburbs have been developed and therefore the need for more taxis has been apparent for many, many years and yet we find the City Council carrying out a running battle, preventing the Labour Front from carrying out its policy of delimitation of taxis. "The limit should be 1,560 and no more" and that limit was there for years and years in spite of the city increasing in size and in boundary! Sir, the Labour Front had a tough time in the City Council to carry through its policy of delimitation of taxis. There is such a thing as the law of supply and demand and the demand was there for more taxis but the Liberal-Socialists in the City Council refused to satisfy the demand so that the vested interests could continue their exploitation. Yet we hear of glib talk of Government not making public transport efficient - the public transport which was under their control all the time until Government thought it wise to take it over recently! Then comes the plea, "Unemployment is another cause for these poor people who go out taking pirate taxis to earn a living." Why can you not legalise it? Why do you stand in the way of legalizing it? Let them have them as licensed taxis. They will be willing to go and get their licences. But no, you want to keep them as illegal operators.

Do I, Mr Minister?

No, Sir. Not you but the Liberal-Socialists in the City Council. I am sorry. And now we have the "champion" of the poor pirate taxi operator asking for grace in order that he should be able to find an alternative job. Why is there any need for the operator of a pirate taxi to find an alternative job? He could go and get his taxi licence if only the Liberal-Socialists in the City Council would permit him to do so by saying, "We are not asking for new taxis. We will relax and let the old taxis be licensed." It is entirely a matter for the City Council whether they want to permit new taxis to be licensed only or whether they would allow old cars to be licensed with certain modifications. But they would not; and yet Government is going to be blamed for it! The Member for Bukit Panjang (Mr Goh Tong Liang) said, "Examination of taxis should not be spiteful." I wish he would tell that to the Liberal-Socialist element in the City Council.

Liberal but not Socialist.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to correct the last speaker on one point. It is well known that the Liberal-Socialists were not against the delimitation in the number of taxis in principle but they said that such delimitation should not take place until amending legislation to control pirate taxis was introduced. The fact that this Bill is before us now is a victory for the Liberal-Socialist policy over the stubborness of the Government. An hon. Member: Eyewash.

Electioneering.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the one hand, the Member for Tanglin claims that the introduction of this Bill is a victory for the Liberal-Socialists whereas two other Liberal-Socialist speakers do their best to condemn this legislation. Mr Butterfield rose-

Mr Attorney-General, in reply?

In reply, Sir. In view of the way in which the debate has gone. I do not think that there is very much I have to say in reply but I was very glad to notice that although they expressed themselves in different ways, as I understood them, all those who spoke on the other side seemed to support this Bill. There are two matters which I should like to correct. It seemed to me that both the Member for Serangoon and the Member for Bukit Panjang are under the impression that the licensing of taxis has got something to do with the Government. It has nothing to do with the Government at all. It is a matter for the Registrar and for the City Council. The final observation which I would like to make is that I was astonished to hear the Member for Serangoon talk about the Government's intention to delimit taxis. Surely, he knows that this it a matter which has been dealt with by the City Council, that it is a matter for the City Council and that steps have already been taken by the City Council to delimit the number of vehicles which may be licensed.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.

3.11 p.m. Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sir, I move, "That the Bill be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, without Amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.13 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's recommendation and consent to proceed with this Bill. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As pointed out in the Explanatory Note, the purpose of this Bill is to enable part-time members of the Singapore Military Forces to be used on internal security measures. The need to use them to supplement the police and regular military units has been felt for some time. We are conscious of the need to fully utilise our resources in internal security measures. I may mention, Sir, that in October last year, for instance, many members of the Singapore Military Forces including National Servicemen offered their services in any capacity in which they could be of use to the authority in restoring law and order. Under the present Singapore Military Forces Ordinance, however, only three types of service, are provided for part-time members, namely, Colour Training Service, Reserve Service and Mobilised Service. It would not usually be practical nor desirable to take the major step of mobilising the Singapore Military Forces in whole or in part to deal with civil disorders. On the other hand, their employment on internal security duties would not be covered by either Colour Training or Reserve Service as defined under the Ordinance. Their use on internal security duties would therefore raise consequential difficulties over their legal status in carrying out their duties and over compensation for any injury sustained. The only way to get over these difficulties is to amend the Singapore Military Forces Ordinance and this is what clauses 3 and 4 of this amending Bill seek to do. Clause 3 amends section 14 of the Ordinance to allow part-time members to be used for internal security duties when called upon by order of the General Officer Commanding, Singapore Base District, under whom the Singapore Military Forces operate. Clause 4 amends section 34 of the principal Ordinance. The effect of these amendments to section 34 is to provide for the pay of members employed on internal security duties, and the intention is that men so called out would be paid the rates of pay they now receive on continuous training. In the case of death or injury, pensions and gratuities would be paid at the same rates as if they were called out on actual service, that is mobilised service, both to the men themselves and/or to their dependants. Provision for this has already been laid down in the rules governing the Singapore Military Forces, namely, the Singapore Military Forces (Pensions, Gratuities and Other Grants) Rules, 1954. Sir, as stated in the Explanatory Note, the opportunity has also been taken to substitute for the references to the Army Act in the principal Ordinance, references to the Army Act, 1955. This has arisen because a new Army Act came into force on 1st January this year and the old Act lapsed at the same time. Clauses 2 and 5 of the Bill merely provide for this substitution and nothing more. Sir, this Bill which enables part-time members of the Singapore Military Forces to be used when necessary on internal security duties in support of the police and regular military units is a further indication of the Government's intention and determination to maintain law and order in Singapore which is so vitally necessary for the Island's well-being. The use of part-time members of the Singapore Military Forces in addition to the regular Battalion, which when ready will be available if needed to provide support for the Police on internal security duties, shows also that in our early approach towards internal self-government, we are fully conscious of the need to utilise fully our own resources in the matter of internal security. I hope, however, Sir, that the occasion will never arise in the future in Singapore, when circumstances are such that we will have to use part-time members of the Singapore Military Forces to supplement the police and regular military units, but that does not mean that we should not take all adequate steps to meet any eventuality. I am sure, Sir, that for the reasons which I have given, this Bill will have the support of the Assembly. I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I beg to move. That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.

3.19 p.m. Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, "That the Bill be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, without Amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.21 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's recommendation and consent to proceed with this Bill. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill is similar in nature to the Singapore Military Forces (Amendment) Ordinance, 1957, which has just been passed by the Assembly. It also makes enabling provision for members of the Malayan Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve to be called out to assist in internal security duties. Like their brothers in the Singapore Military Forces, members of the Malayan Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, who are composed entirely of volunteers, are also desirous to play their part in times of civil disorders. At present, however, the Malayan Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve Ordinance (Cap. 78 of the Revised Edition) provides for only two types of service, namely, service when attached to or otherwise acting as part of or with the Royal Navy, and actual service (which means mobilised service), neither of which covers the eventuality in mind. It is not practicable nor desirable to order a general mobilisation of this force following the proclamation of a state of emergency merely in order to employ members on internal security duties. Clause 2 of the Bill therefore amends section 10 of the principal Ordinance to provide for their being called out during civil disorders by an order of the Flag Officer, Malayan Area, under whom the Malayan Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve operates, and when so called out, will be subject to the Naval Discipline Act. Sir, like in the previous Ordinance just passed, this Bill also provides for the pay of members employed on internal security measures, and the intention is that they be paid according to the rates of pay they now receive on continuous training. In the case of death or injury, this Bill also provides for payment of compensation at the same rates as for actual services. Sir, the remarks I made on the previous Bill about the maintenance of law and order and the need to utilise our own resources equally apply here, and therefore there is no need for me to repeat them. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.

3.25 p.m. Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move. "That the Bill be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, without Amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.26 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's recommendation and consent to proceed with this Bill. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill has the same objects and reasons as the two previous Bills just passed in the Assembly. By this Bill, it is proposed that members of the Singapore section of the Malayan Auxiliary Air Force should be enabled to assist in internal security duties along with their counterparts in the Singapore Military Forces and the Malayan Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve without having to be called out on actual service under section 17 of the principal Ordinance. Clause 3 of this amending Bill now provides for their being called out during civil disorders by an order of the Air Officer Commanding, and clause 4 provides that when called out they shall be subject, for disciplinary purposes, to the Air Force Act. Clause 5 of the Bill enables rules to be made to provide for pay and allowances, and the intention is to prescribe the same rates of pay and allowances for service on internal security duties as are now prescribed for continuous training. The principal Ordinance already provides for rules governing the payment of pensions and gratuities in the event of death or injury, and when the Bill becomes law, steps will be taken to make rules prescribing the rates of compensation payable in the event of injury or death of a member of the force. Sir, as also stated in the Explanatory Note, the opportunity is also being taken, in clause 2 of this amending Bill, to ensure that all references to the Air Force Act in the Malayan Auxiliary Air Force Ordinance relate to the new Air Force Act which came into force on 1st January this year, and not to the old Air Force Act which has lapsed. Sir, like the other two previous Bills, I am sure that for the reasons given this Assembly will also pass this amending Bill. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to Bill considered in Committee.

3.30 p.m. Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, without Amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time.

3.31 p.m. The Chief Minister (Mr Lim Yew Hock) rose-

Is it a business motion?

Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, as we have only two more matters left on the Order Paper, may I seek the assent of this House to move a motion to suspend Standing Orders to enable the remaining items on the Order Paper to be completed today?

Have I the assent of hon. Members? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Thank you, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the proceedings on the remaining items of business be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the remaining items of business be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That at its rising today, this Assembly do stand adjourned to Wednesday, 19th June, 1957.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising today, this Assembly do stand adjourned to Wednesday, 19th June, 1957.

3.33 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name which reads, That this Assembly urges upon the Government to set up a committee without delay to review the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance (Cap. 166) with a view to recommending such amendments to the Ordinance as to suit local conditions, with particular reference to personal reliefs to aged parents and other close relatives solely dependent on the taxpayer. Mr Speaker, Sir, at the last sitting of the Assembly on 24th April, in reply to my question regarding amendments to grant personal reliefs under the Income Tax Ordinance, the Hon. the Acting Financial Secretary had this to say: "Sir, a proposal of this nature requires consideration on a pan-Malayan basis. This is one of the many questions that are constantly engaging my attention. I am sure the hon. Member will not wish me to anticipate any statement that I might wish to make at a future date." At that time, Sir, I did not press for an anticipated statement because I fully realised the complicated nature of the consultations with the Government of the Federation of Malaya, but I asked whether there had been any consultations with that Government and the reply was, "I have nothing more to add." It really surprises me, Sir, that in spite of the admission by the Hon. the Acting Financial Secretary that this matter has engaged his attention for some time, no attempt had been made to negotiate or commence consultations with the Government of the Federation of Malaya. The answer given last month was most unsatisfactory and has prompted me to table my motion today because I realise that filing in more questions will serve no useful purpose. If I had not put in my motion today, I am quite certain that, at the expiry of the term of office of the Government, the Ordinance will remain what it is today. Everyone knows, Sir, that Government, including the Hon. the Financial Secretary, is fully aware of the anomalies in the Income Tax Ordinance, yet it has taken no action on the matter. Why has it adopted a tida apa attitude? I believe, Sir, that the most probable reason is that most of them are now Ministers drawing fat salaries and do not mind being taxed at all, whatever the amount may be.

Shame!

Shame! Real shame! A few months ago, Sir, the Labour Front, through its General Secretary, Mr Tang Peng Yeu, made a public announcement that it was going to call upon the Government to set up a committee on the same principle as set out in my motion, but right up to today nothing more has been heard. What has happened? I do not know. Nobody has made any further announcement. I think, from a further announcement by the General Secretary, that the proposal has died a natural death. I will not comment on what that statement was. I hope that the Hon. the Chief Minister or the Chairman of the Labour Front will be able to explain better because I am not in the Front and I do not know what its activities are. Sir, the delay in amending the Income Tax Ordinance is causing great concern to the public. Singapore is an Asian country and with Malayanisation in progress, I believe that this Island will be fully Asianised (not Malayanised) in five to ten years' time. If that be the case, Sir, let us adopt the Asian way and attitude; let us frame our legislation on the same principle - in the Asian way. This delay in amending the Ordinance has prompted the formation of a new body called the Income Taxpayers' Association. The anomalies in the Ordinance and the tida apa attitude of the Government has prompted this Association to send a memorandum to the Government. I have a copy with me. I am happy the memorandum has been submitted as it will save me from making a long speech. Without it, I might have had to elaborate on the technicalities or details of the Ordinance. The points which I intend to raise this afternoon are almost identical with those contained in the memorandum, so there is no need for me to elaborate my motion much. The present Ordinance, Sir, gives a lot of power to the Comptroller of Income Tax, but to the taxpayer there is no way out at all. There is no privilege at all for him. He is oppressed. Even if he should submit an appeal, it will serve him no good. I will quote, Sir, what the Income Taxpayers' Association has said about appeals: "In the case of an appeal, the appellant is required to furnish a statement of the grounds of appeal, and he is not allowed to rely on any ground other than those in the statement save with the consent of the Board of Review. This cannot but operate to the detriment of the appellant as where the grounds are divulged, the Comptroller is allowed time to prepare his defence and put forth counter-proposals without the former knowing what those proposals are. In addition, when we take into account the fact that the taxpayer is not allowed to rely on any grounds for appeal besides those contained in the statement, it is felt that the Ordinance is one-sided. The burden of proving that an assessment is excessive is onerous enough without these provisions. We suggest that the words 'a statement of the grounds of appeal' in section 75 (1) (b) together with subsection (6) of section 75 should be deleted." That is what the Association had to say. Apart from the fact that an appeal will serve no useful purpose, the present personal reliefs granted to the taxpayer are far from adequate. It has been stated again and again in this Assembly by many Members, Government and Opposition, that the reliefs are very, very inadequate. The present reliefs are for the wife and children only. But what about parents? Oh, do not mind them at all! The Hon. the Chief Minister himself is an Asian and I think he knows that he has the responsibility of maintaining his parents if they are unemployed. If such be the case, why forget about such reliefs in the Ordinance? Two years have passed, yet nothing has been done. It is an unsatisfactory Ordinance which provides only for the wife and children but nobody else. I will quote again from the letter of the Taxpayers' Association, on the matter of reliefs: "Child allowance - Section 35 (2) (d) provides allowance for children whether legitimate or adopted maintained by the taxpayer, but it is too often that the taxpayer brings up his younger brother or sister, or the children of his Sister or brother who is destitute or deceased. He may also have to support his aged parents who have no income of their own, as is the custom in the East. Allowance for these dependants should be deducted from the income of the taxpayer before it is subject to tax. For instance, in the United Kingdom [United Kingdom, it says, Sir] apart from personal allowance of �440 to a single person or �240 for a married man in addition to two-ninths of the net earned income, a maximum of �450 for the following allowances are allowed: "(1) Dependant relatives: �60, if a taxpayer maintains a relative of himself or his wife. Children: �100 for each child, stepchild or adopted child under 16 years. House-keeper or person looking after children: �60 for widow or widower with female relative or house-keeper looking after children. Unmarried men with widowed mother, or husband with incapacitated wife, daughters' service: �40 if daughter is maintained by and lives with taxpayer because he or his wife is infirm. "There are innumerable cases which have come to our notice why, by reason of the execution of the father by the Japanese or his death during the enemy occupation, his children are being supported by other relatives. It is formally recommended that consideration be given to the amendment of section 35 (2) (d) to provide for the deductions to be allowed in respect of such dependant relatives or child." Sir, you see from what the Taxpayers' Association writes that even in the United Kingdom allowances are provided for the father, mother, children and close relatives of the taxpayer. My motion, Sir, does not seek to ask the Government to amend the Ordinance straightaway. What it calls for is the setting up of a committee to review the Income Tax Ordinance with a view to granting reliefs for aged parents and close relatives. I am fully aware of the complications which that may involve. As the Hon. the Acting Financial Secretary has said, he has to consult the Government of the Federation of Malaya before he can amend the Ordinance. What I want now, Sir, is to have a committee set up to review the Ordinance and report to Government. With that report, the Government can hold consultations with the Federation and see whether amendments can be made to suit both territories. Therefore, I hope, Sir, that both sides of the House will accept my motion. Before I end, Sir, may I make it clear that by "committee" I do not mean a select committee of this Assembly, but one set up by Government of experts such as accountants and economists who can really go into the Income Tax Ordinance and make recommendations. A select committee of this Assembly will not serve much purpose as I can see very few accountants here; apart from the Hon. the Acting Financial Secretary, I do not think anyone else here can claim to be an expert on figures. So I do hope, Sir, that my motion will receive the unanimous support of the Assembly. Sir, I beg to move. 3.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion moved by the Member for Queenstown. Income tax, Sir, is in force in Singapore and it is the same method as in the United Kingdom. I have here a circular to claim for repayment of United Kingdom taxes given to me by a Britisher who is affected by this. Refer to clause 13. Sir, there, if you maintain a relative of yourself or your wife who is incapacitated by old age or infirmity, or if you maintain your widowed mother or your wife's widowed mother, although she may not be incapable, you can claim an allowance of �60 for each person so maintained. This allowance, however, is reduced by one pound for every pound of the relative's own income excluding voluntary contributions and income specifically exempted from income tax such as unemployment benefit and national assistance. The maximum allowance is �105; if the income is �160 or more, there is no allowance. In Singapore, we do not have national assistance or unemployment benefit, but I see no reason why the allowance for maintaining relatives granted in the United Kingdom cannot be introduced into this Colony, where the taxpayer usually has several dependants to support. As an example, I would like to quote the case of a bachelor. His present personal allowance is $3,000 per annum or $250 a month. If the additional benefit of �105 is given, at the rate of $8.50 to a pound we get $892.50, making a total allowance of $3,892.50 per annum or $324.38 per month. A bachelor in Singapore earning $320 a month with one dependant therefore need not pay income tax. If he has two dependants, his allowance will be $892.50 multiplied by two, giving $1,985, plus $3,000, making a total of $4,985 per annum or $415.45 per month, under which figure he need not pay tax. In the case of married couples, Sir, the husband is now entitled to $3,000 and the wife to $2,500, making a total of $5,500. If they have one dependant, the proposed benefit will mean an allowance of $892.50, making it $6,392.50 per annum or $532.75 per month. Married couples earning $530 will therefore not be liable to tax if we introduce the extra benefit. If they have two dependants, their allowances will total $5,500 plus $1,985, making $7,485 per annum or $623.75 per month. Couples drawing $620 a month will therefore not be liable to pay tax. It is well known, Sir, that we Asians living in this country have to support parents and other dependants on account of filial love, which is known to the world. I am not challenging the Hon. the Acting Financial Secretary but, speaking on behalf of the people of Singapore, who are mostly wage-earners, I ask the Government to consider introducing this benefit. Question proposed. 3.51 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move an amendment to the motion: To leave out all words after "set up" in line 1 to "Ordinance" in line 4 and to insert "an independent committee without delay to review the operation of the Income Tax Ordinance and the working of the Income Tax Department with a view to recommending such amendments to the Ordinance as to allow of a more efficient and equitable collection of income tax revenue, and". Amendment handed in.

The amendment is in order. Please proceed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion as I wish to amend it, now reads (for the sake of clarity): That this Assembly urges upon the Government to set up an independent committee without delay to review the operation of the Income Tax Ordinance and the working of the Income Tax Department with a view to recommending such amendments to the Ordinance as to allow of a more efficient and equitable collection of income tax revenue, and as to suit local conditions, with particular reference to personal reliefs to aged parents and other close relatives solely dependent on the taxpayer. Sir, the object of this amendment is merely to widen the scope of the motion and not, of course, to conflict with it. I think that I have the acceptance by the hon. Member for Queenstown of this amendment. The motion then, as amended, is a simple one - that this House is of the opinion that an independent committee be set up to look into the operation of the present Income Tax Ordinance, its inconsistencies, anomalies and injustices. Sir, this Ordinance has been in operation for about nine years. During all this time there has been no thorough examination of the way in which it has been operated. There has been no consideration by an independent body as to how far this Ordinance has been adapted to suit the customs and traditions of a multi-racial population, and to suit the particular needs and conditions prevailing on a small island depending almost solely on trade for its existence. Let me therefore give some examples of the questions which deserve close and careful examination. My first example is that of errors or mistakes in assessments and returns. The taxpayer has only 30 days in which to lodge a valid objection or appeal against an assessment before the assessment becomes final and conclusive. On the other hand, the Income Tax Department can raise additional assessments under section 73 (1) of the Ordinance at any time within six years. In other words, if a taxpayer has made a genuine error or mistake in his return, after 30 days he has no means of correcting his error, and the Department is not obliged to reopen and amend his assessment. But if the Department makes a mistake, it can rectify the assessment at any time up to six years. It has been said that the Department is prepared to reopen assessments in cases of genuine errors by taxpayers, but the public of Singapore is entitled to written safeguards so that the Department cannot change its policy at any time according to its fancy, and so that there can be no suspicion of discrimination between one taxpayer and another. In the United Kingdom Act of 1952, section 66 allows relief in respect of error or mistake at any time not later than six years after the end of the year of assessment. Here is an injustice limited to Singapore and the Federation which quite clearly requires a committee of enquiry to look into. Sir, there is then the question of personal reliefs on which the Members for Queenstown and Kampong Kapor have already touched, and I do not want to repeat their arguments. Nevertheless, there are three points which should be subjects for consideration. The first is the allowance for a wife. In the year of marriage, a taxpayer in Singapore is assessed, firstly, on his own income of the previous year on the normal basis, and secondly, a proportion of the wife's income of the previous year, but no personal allowance for the wife is granted. While it is true that the wife is granted a personal allowance for herself against the balance of her income for that year, it must be pointed out that the combined effect is to tax total income at a higher rate than normally. This is extremely unjust and this anomaly falls at a time when the young couple is most in need of funds to go on their honeymoon or to set up a home. In brief, the method of assessing the wife's income is such as to be either a dis-incentive for married women to work, or an encouragement to living in sin. Our view is that the wife's earned income should be subject to an additional allowance (it is in the United Kingdom; why not here?) based on a certain percentage of income and subject to a certain maximum, let us say, for example, $1,000. This allowance of course should be granted in the year of marriage, also, at a time when it is most needed. Secondly, another form of allowance which needs consideration is an education allowance in respect of a son or daughter studying at the University of Malaya. Allowances are given to parents who can afford to send children to universities overseas. Should not an appropriate allowance be allowed to parents who cannot even afford to send their children to our own university? Thirdly, a committee of enquiry should consider the question of earned income relief. From the point of view of equity, we consider that greater relief should be accorded to a person who earns his income by personal exertion than to a recipient of investment income, whose monetary reward is not obtained from productive effort. In other words, there should be a distinction between income from salaries and income from dividends. I believe, Sir, that this matter was considered some years ago shortly after the Income Tax Ordinance was introduced, but it was rejected at that time on the ground that the rates of tax were low and the personal allowances generous. Those grounds, in our view, are no longer valid. Firstly, the rates of tax have been increased and, secondly, personal allowances which might have been generous then, are no longer so in 1957 due to increases in the cost of living. Whilst on the subject of dividends, consideration should be given to the question of making assessable for tax, dividends received from a source outside Malaya by persons resident in Malaya. At present, such dividends are only liable to Malayan tax if they are exclusively received in Malaya. It appears wrong, to say the least of it, that persons resident in Malaya may invest their money abroad, leaving dividends or interests abroad and not paying Malayan tax. Since this country needs money for investment in new enterprises, such a provision may deter persons from investing abroad and induce them to invest in Malaya. Mr Speaker, Sir, it might be considered by Government that these points do not merit the setting up of a special independent committee of enquiry, that the things which are wrong purely as a matter of opinion or policy do not need special investigation. But I will now go into detail regarding a matter which is very, very wrong indeed. Sir, at question time on 20th November last year, the Hon. the Financial Secretary was asked to give the figures of the number of persons who had left the Colony without paying their income tax, the total amount of income tax due by them and the break-down for each year since the coming into force of the Income Tax Ordinance. The Hon. the Financial Secretary, who was Mr Hart at that time, replied: "...since the Income Tax Ordinance came into force, 1,827 persons have left Singapore without paying their income tax. The total amounts due from these persons are ... $1,102,007." I will not worry you with the details for each year but I will ask you to note that the figure was just over $44,000. Now Sir, I have to submit to this House that the picture presented to us was extremely misleading. When the Hon. the Financial Secretary stated that 1,827 persons had left Singapore without paying their income tax over a period of eight or nine years, what he meant was 1,827 persons known to the Income Tax Department left Singapore without paying their income tax. Let me give you the real facts. The present practice of the Income Tax Department is, in view of section 10 (1) (b) and section 12 (4) of the Ordinance, to consider all persons other than British subjects or Commonwealth citizens who visit Singapore for business purposes as liable to tax, and liable moreover at the rate of 30 per cent without the benefit of personal reliefs. Let me read to you the relevant sections. These are: "Section 10 (1) (b) Income tax shall, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, be payable at the rate or rates specified hereinafter for each year of assessment upon the income of any person accruing in or derived from the Colony or received in the Colony from outside the Colony in respect of gains or profits from any employment;". "Section 12 (4) The gains or profits from any employment exercised in the Colony shall be deemed to be derived from the Colony whether the gains or profits from such employment are received in the Colony or not." Section 12 (4) is the more important of the two for it means that any person visiting Singapore for business reasons for however short a time is subject to tax even if the income or salary he receives is paid to him elsewhere. In effect I should make it clear that this applies to non-British subjects only because British subjects or Commonwealth citizens will be covered, as a rule, by double taxation arrangements. Now, Sir, let us look at the facts. If we turn to the 1955 Report of the Income Tax Department, Abstract B, on page 8, we find that the number of persons non-resident in Malaya assessed for tax for the year 1955 is 1,786. Our next enquiry is on the 1955 Report of the Immigration Department, Appendix B, which is a statement of persons arriving in Singapore during 1955 by sea and air. Under the Head "Aliens", those other than British subjects who come under another head, we find that the number of aliens who arrived in Singapore on business visits in 1955 was 6,565. In addition, a further 18,377 visited Singapore in transit, making a total of nearly 25,000 persons. Now it may be argued that most of those 18,377 were only here for a night or two and were not here for business reasons, but nevertheless the Income Tax Department pursued some of them. I have known of a case only recently of a businessman who was here in transit for only a couple of days, arriving by one plane and waiting to leave by another, who received a letter from the Department asking the purpose of his visit and for a statement of his income paid to him in the United States. Let us, however, leave aside the 18,377 transit visitors and consider the 6,565 persons here on business. As the income tax figures show, the Department caught only 1,786. In other words, 4,779 left Singapore without paying tax in 1955, whereas the Financial Secretary gave us the figure of 1,827 persons over a period of nine years. It is clear, therefore, that section 12 (4) of the Ordinance is badly enforced, and a rule badly enforced is worse than no rule at all. Since 6,565 aliens entered the colony for business, presumably all should have paid tax on their income earned whilst in the colony; and yet the 1955 Report of the Income Tax Department shows that only 1,786 did so. In fact, it is well known that the majority of these people do not pay. Only those unfortunate enough to come under the Department's eye through newspaper reports and other sources receive the usual demand for a return and eventually for payment of tax. This naturally is leading to two results: firstly, people are deliberately evading tax; and, secondly, Singapore is losing business and foreign currency as the minority who are caught are advising others to by-pass this island. It would be the duty of a committee of enquiry to consider whether persons bringing business and wealth to Singapore should be asked to pay 30 per cent of their earnings over to the colony as income tax, and whether in truth it is not a direct discouragement to the expansion of trade and industry in this country which the present Government professes to wish to encourage. An American businessman arrives in Singapore wishing to make business contacts and interested in the possibilities of building a new factory on the island. In a misguided moment he expresses his intentions to newspaper reporters at the airport and finds himself the subject of an article on a commercial page of the Straits Times or the Singapore Standard. What is the first response he gets? A letter from the Income Tax Department asking for 30 per cent of his earned income - and his response is to take the next plane out of Paya Lebar Airport before the Department can catch him, and with no further interest in building a factory in Singapore. Conversely, there are many persons coming here for a short period who cannot afford to pay 30 per cent in tax and maintain themselves here at the same time. Indeed it would be pertinent to enquire from the Department how much tax on non-residents has had to be written off through their inability to pay. Let us take the case at random of a Dutch bank assistant earning the equivalent of $800 a month in Holland who comes out from his homeland to relieve a colleague for a few months who is going on leave. His salary is taxed at a straight 30 per cent, leaving him with $560 per month and no benefit of reliefs or allowances. If in the United Kingdom a non-resident is immune from tax for a stay of six months until he becomes defined as a resident, we see a number of reasons to do the same here if businessmen are to be encouraged to come to this country. Sir, I know that I am going to be told that the Government cannot afford to lose the $2,343,456 which the 1,786 non-residents paid in tax in 1955. There is, however, in our view, a simple answer to this. Instead of spending their energies and their staff on tracking down non-residents who bring wealth to this country, the Department should first turn their attention to those entering the country to reside here. Once again, we turn to the Immigration Department table giving the number of persons who arrived in Singapore for residence during 1955, that is, those filling in an Immigration Landing Card. Let us take the males only, leaving out females and children who, in the main, will of course not be subject to tax. We find that 16,939 British subjects or Commonwealth citizens and 13,585 aliens entered Singapore, making a total of 30,524 males who entered Singapore for the purposes of residence in 1955, and let it be noted that of this number 8,246 (or more than one-quarter) were Europeans almost all of whom would be liable to tax. Now, allowing for those males entering who would not be liable to tax - and that number is limited by our immigration laws - for those entering the colony from overseas more than once during the year, for those who have left the colony, and for those who proceed direct to the Federation, there must be a very fair number of taxable persons taking up residence in Singapore. Whether the figure - and it is obviously not 30,000 - is 20,000 or 10,000 or even 5,000, it is still a large one if taken into conjunction with my next point. If we look at the Income Tax Department Reports for 1954 and 1955, we will note that 18,752 resident individuals were assessed in 1954 and 19,340 in 1955, a total increase of only 588. Is it conceivable that the number of 30,000 entries can be whittled down as low as that, and you must in any case allow for an increase in old Singapore residents becoming subject to tax? Here then is the position. New residents are coming into the country at the rate of thousands per year, whereas the increase in the number being assessed is a few hundred per year. I must confess that I was staggered when I examined these figures, and I hope the Government will be shocked into the realisation that there must be evasion on a large scale, and that our request to the Government from this side of the House for the setting up of an independent committee is thoroughly justified. Indeed there seems to be sufficient evidence to suggest that the tax clearance scheme before people leave the country should be considered, as it is adopted in Australia or New Zealand. Consideration needs to be given as to whether the Income Tax Department is using or is being allowed to use all possible legitimate ways of obtaining information. There seems to be a case for considering whether section 64 of the Ordinance empowering heads of firms to send in a list of employees liable to tax is enough when one knows the numbers of representatives of overseas firms residing here who have no heads of firms here sending in those returns. In the Budget debate last November the Financial Secretary said, "I consider that the Department has done and is doing a splendid job." In the face of these figures, we beg to differ. If there has been an excuse, it has always been that of a lack of experienced staff and trained income tax officers. In our view, if the existing staff - and it is a hard-working staff - were taken off the job of chasing non-residents who stay in this country for three days and turned their attention to the detection of new residents through more street surveys, the Income Tax Department would be more respected and more revenue would flow to our coffers. Sir, I hope I have said enough to convince the Government that this present situation is thoroughly unsatisfactory and that the time has come for an independent enquiry into the operation of an Ordinance which was drafted in something of a hurry just after the war and has not been given a thorough enough scrutiny and attention. I congratulate the Member for Queenstown for introducing this motion. We on this side of the House are fully in support of it, coupled with the amendment which I have moved and which merely widens its scope. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I rise to second this amendment to the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later stage. 4.17 p.m.

The original Question was, "That this Assembly urges upon the Government to set up a committee without delay to review the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance (Cap. 166) with a view to recommending such amendments to the Ordinance as to suit local conditions, with particular reference to personal reliefs to aged parents and other close relatives solely dependent on the taxpayer." Since when an amendment has been proposed, To leave out all the words from "up" in line 1 to "as" in line 4, that is to say, the words "a committee without delay to review the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance (Cap. 166) with a view to recommending such amendments to the Ordinance", and there to insert "an independent committee without delay to review the operation of the Income Tax Ordinance and the working of the Income Tax Department with a view to recommending such amendments to the Ordinance as to allow of a more efficient and equitable collection of income tax revenue, and". Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." 4.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I see there is no difference between the original motion moved by the Member for Queenstown and the amendment moved by the Member for Tanglin. The committee proposed to be set up under the terms of the motion will investigate the collection of tax also, Sir. I am against the amendment moved by the Member for Tanglin because it has come from a member of the Liberal-Socialist Party. I would rather prefer to have the motion moved by an Independent member, and I think the Government will consider it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, speaking in support of my seconder for the original motion, I would like to point out that, on the face of it, the amendment moved by the Member for Tanglin seems to be very well worded and looks as if it will allow the committee wider scope for investigation. My motion says: "...to review the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance (Cap. 166)...". Sir, Chapter 166 has 12 items covered in the Income Tax Ordinance. The difference, as I see it, between my motion and the amendment is the working of the Income Tax Department and the efficient and equitable collection of income tax. As I have said. Sir, Chapter 166 covers 12 items and all these items do include the working of the income Tax Department as much as the efficient and equitable collection of income tax. These 12 items are: (1) Deductions and disbursements; (2) Foreign companies; (3) Dividends; (4) Funds for retirement; (5) Losers; (6) Depreciation of buildings; (7) Stock valuation; (8) Commencement and cessation of business; (9) Allowances (which are personal allowances) or reliefs; (10) Statements of accounts; (11) Mistake of facts; (12) Appeals. Sir, the working of the Income Tax Department and the collection of tax could be covered in any of these 12 items, so I do not see much purpose in moving the amendment. The Member for Tanglin said that I agreed originally. Sir, I have agreed to the submission of the amendment, but I have not committed myself by saying that I will agree to accept the amendment. I do not think I have any right to stop any hon. Member from submitting an amendment, but it is my right to vote according to my conscience and whether I support or do not support. Another difference that I can see is the word "independent" appearing in the amendment. It has the words "independent committee", whereas my motion has the word "committee" only. Sir, in the last part of my speech, I think I made it very clear that the word "committee" does not mean a Select Committee of this Assembly. The word "committee" means an independent committee to be set up by the Government composed of independent individuals who are experts in the Income Tax Ordinance and know the working of the Income Tax Department. So I do not see much purpose in moving the amendment. To do so is just to overshadow the original motion, and as the Member for Kampong Kapor has rightly said, it becomes a clash of Parties. I think this House is more prepared to accept a motion in the name of an Independent where no Party inclinations are involved. In the circumstances. Sir, I do not agree to the amendment. 4.24 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, so far Members of the Opposition have had the floor. The Government had in mind to accept the original motion, but since then it has been amended by the Member for Tanglin. What the hon. Member seeks to achieve by his amendment is that the Government should appoint an independent committee. To that extent, Sir, the Government opposes the amendment. The taxation policy is the sole responsibility of the government of the day, and it cannot relegate this responsibility to any independent body. Any government of the day should be brave enough to state its taxation policy and stand up to any criticism which the Opposition Members may bring up. I must confess that I am greatly interested in the various points raised by the Member for Tanglin in his speech. I have not yet had time to consult my colleague the Financial Secretary, but I can say this: that some of the points raised by the hon. Member have already been occupying the attention of the Financial Secretary, and I give the hon. Member the assurance that all the points he has raised will be thoroughly investigated. I know he is just as anxious as the Government that we should improve the Income Tax Ordinance so as to ensure better collection and greater revenue. Since the question of dependant allowances was brought up at the last Budget debate, the Government has been giving serious consideration to it. Last month-

Order. Will the Chief Minister confine himself to the amendment?

Mr. Speaker, Sir, in moving his amendment the Member for Tanglin did touch on the subject of family allowance, and this is in reply to what he said.

The position is that the mover of the amendment spoke to the original Question which of course includes the question of allowances. Having done that, he moved his amendment and any Member who speaks on the amendment will have to confine himself to it. Later on if the amendment is lost, or even carried, the original Question, or the original Question as amended, comes back to the Assembly and then hon. Members can speak on that aspect of the motion. The Chief Minister has a second chance to speak, in other words.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I thought of just speaking once on this amendment and when it came to the motion, I did not wish to speak again because I did not think it was necessary to repeat what I had said when speaking on the amendment. 4.28 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, listening to the arguments against the amendment to the motion, I feel that Members in this House sometimes do not understand what is right or what is wrong. It is not important whether a motion is moved by a Party Member or an Independent Member. If the motion, or the amendment, is right, then we must accept it, no matter from whichever quarter it comes from. If it should come from an Independent, well and good, he should be given the credit. If it should come from the Government, well and good, we can say that the Government knows the feelings of the people. If it comes from another Party in the Opposition and that Party is genuinely for the people and voicing the opinion of the people that there is a real need for such a motion or an amendment, then it should be accepted. Nothing should be said that because it comes from this quarter, it should be rejected, because then it boils down to a question of personalities. The Chief Minister rose -

Point of order?

Point of elucidation, Sir.

Will the hon. Member give way?

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Government has not stated that, because the amendment has been moved by a Member of the Opposition, it is opposing it. The Government opposes it on the ground that it cannot relegate its responsibility in so far as taxation is concerned.

Certainly, we will come to that point. Sir. It so happens that the Member who spoke in that trend comes from the Opposition. I think that if Singapore is going to progress, it should be on a basis of what is right and not who is right. Therefore on a question of this sort, I cannot agree with the Member for Kampong Kapor (Mr. Seah Peng Chuan) or the Member for Queenstown (Mr. Lee Choon Eng) for putting forward the statement that it comes from a certain Party and that therefore it should not be accepted. On the other hand, Sir, the Government says that it is its duty to see that its taxation policy is defended and that it will defend it to the very end. I would like to ask one question, Sir. If the policy were wrong, inhuman and undemocratic, would the Government still defend it because it is a Government measure? The Hon. the Chief Minister mentioned, Sir, that he is accepting the original motion. What is the difference between the one and the other? Is there a great deal of difference? An independent committee, Sir, I believe, is the best committee to investigate into such affairs. It is not a committee empowered with operating the law. It is not a committee empowered with collecting the tax. That committee, Sir, so far as tax collection is concerned, has only advisory power, to advise the Government on the change of the Schedule. It does not infringe upon the powers of the Government. I am certain, Sir, that this Labour Front Coalition Government has appointed many committees. Many of its committees, it is said, are independent committees. It has its committees to help in its education policy and in all sorts of policies. Would the Government say that it is handing over power to these various committees and that these various committees are running the Government? Would it say that it would not accept the advice of these committees? On the contrary, I find that whenever an attack is made on the Government, invariably it hides behind all such committees by saying, "This has been recommended by the Hawkins Committee. This has been recommended by the All-Party Committee. This has been recommended by all sorts of Committees." But when it comes to the appointment of an independent Tax Committee to advise Government on the whole matter, it says that it cannot give the power to such a Committee. Where is the logic of this? It applies in one case; it does not apply in another case. I cannot understand the attitude of the Government. What the Government should do is to express its gratitude for the assistance of the Opposition in bringing to its notice all the various shortcomings of a department in helping it to collect more tax. After all, the Government is spending more than what it earns, and if this state of affairs carries on with more spending and less saving, Singapore will one day become insolvent. Somebody comes along to help the Government and this is the way the Government receives it! It rather reminds me of rendering a good act and in return being back-bitten for offering that help. This is setting a bad example for people to follow. My colleague has voiced his opinion of the various ways in which the Government can collect more tax. My colleague has said that there had been a large number of people who had made money in Singapore and then left for their homelands. These are the expatriate officers I expect and people who come from investing countries making their pile and then going away from this country. In fact, I almost feel that the Member for Tanglin is voicing something that the Government usually would not believe, he himself being of European extract and the voicing of such a sentiment for the benefit of Singapore is really a credit to my colleague, the Member for Tanglin. The Government cannot deny that there are such tax evasions and the number of such people involved is not too many - a few thousand people perhaps. When these people are about to leave this country, they have to go through the Immigration Department. Co-ordination between the Immigration Department and the Income Tax Department should make the collection of such taxation easier. I know that the tax clearance scheme is not new in this world. Many of the Western countries have had that for many, many years and a suggestion like this should not be spurned. Furthermore, the amendment did not exclude any real substance from the original motion. It also asks that the whole question be investigated as regards reliefs to close relatives who, of course, include aged parents, dependants, brothers, sisters and children probably exceeding nine in number, but I hope it does not include secondary wives or kept mistresses which I think would be a wrong thing to include. Sir, on the whole, I am of the opinion that the amendment to the motion is a really good one and whoever opposes such an amendment, opposes it not because it is not good but because probably of personal reasons. Any opposition to such a motion, Sir, means that the Member is not having the interest of Singapore at heart but is calculating on what will be gained by his own person or by his Party. Sir, I support the amendment. 4.40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have not been convinced by the proposer nor by the seconder of the amendment that the amendment is an improvement on the original motion. I would have supported the amendment if I could have been so convinced notwithstanding that the amendment has come from the Liberal-Socialists. This morning a Member of this House - I cannot remember who - said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It is, Sir. The alarming figures given by the Member for Tanglin of the number of visitors to Singapore - aliens and otherwise, Sir - is no indication that the Income Tax Department has allowed these people to escape paying income tax, because referring to the same section 12 referred to by the Member for Tanglin, we will find, Sir, under that section that where a non-resident carries on business partly in Singapore and partly out of Singapore, the profits he derives from such business operation shall be deemed to have been derived from Singapore which are not directly derived from outside Singapore, and these profits are liable for assessment for taxation. Further, Sir, in another section, a person must have resided here for six months in the year of assessment before he becomes liable. So, Sir, the number of visitors coming into Singapore is no indication of the negligence on the part of the Income Tax Department. Sir, the Member for Tanglin has expressed great interest in the tourist business of Singapore. If we were to say that any visitor to Singapore is liable to pay income tax, Sir, that idea of tourist business will be absolutely killed.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I listened, I would say not with interest but with amusement, to the ramblings of the Member for Serangoon for the past ten minutes. He opened his address, and I speak subject to correction, by saying that he could not see any difference between the original motion and the amendment. If he could not see any difference, why bring in the amendment and waste ten minutes of this House's time? Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 4; Noes, 19; Abstentions, Nil; Absent, 7. Ayes Noes Ede, John. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Goh Tong Liang. Jumat. Lim Choon Mong. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Tan, William. Braga, A. J. Butterfield, C. H. Chew Swee Kee. Abstentions Goh Chew Chua. Nil. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lee Choon Eng. Absent Lim Cher Kheng. Jumabhoy, R. Lim, R. C. H. Lazarous, A. R. Lim Yew Hock. Lim Ching Siong. Mak Pak Shee. Lim Koon Teck. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Sutherland, G. A. P. Abdul Hamid. Thomas, Francis. Nair, M. P. D. Wong Foo Nam. Ong Piah Teng. Oon Khye Kiang. Seah Peng Chuan. Stewart, S. T. Tan Theng Chiang. Amendment accordingly negatived. Original Question again proposed. 4.50 p.m. The Acting Financial Secretary (Mr Oon Khye Kiang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government accepts the motion. This Government is well aware of the feelings of the Asians, expressed both in the Press and public statements as well as in the speeches of the hon. Members at the last Budget debate, towards this matter and is in sympathy with the principle of granting allowances to dependants other than wives and children. In fact, Sir, consideration is being given to review the case for the grant of such allowances. As will be appreciated, this additional form of relief cannot be arbitrarily fixed. There are about 19,000 taxpayers in the Colony, and if this additional form of relief were granted without careful examination of all the implications involved in the proposal, it may well be that there will be a considerable loss of revenue. Income tax is and will be one of the main sources of revenue to this country. We shall require all the money for the expansion of social services and of economic activities. If it is intended that the social and economic services should be maintained at the present level of activity, it is essential that this source of revenue should not only be maintained but also increased to cope with a mounting expenditure. The present scale of allowances is: $ (a) Personal 3,000 (b) Allowance for wife 2,000 (c) Allowances up to a maximum of $3,150 for nine children They are very generous compared with those granted in other countries. The following allowances are granted in respect of personal allowance and allowance for wife in these countries: Personal Allowance Allowance for wife $ $ India 645 645 Pakistan 1,000 Nil Ceylon 1,350 1,000 U.K. 1,200 840 Australia Nil 875 New Zealand 3,180 1,000 U.S.A 1,800 1,800 The allowances for children in these countries are also comparatively much less. In the circumstances, it has to be considered whether this proposed relief can be granted in addition to the present scale of allowances or whether some reduction in the existing allowances may have to be made for the introduction of dependant allowances. It is inevitable that the work of the department will be increased in scrutinising the various claims for relief which, according to experience in other countries, will require careful examination. The difficulties involved in checking the bona fides of claimants will be very considerable. At the moment when the limited resources of the department are strained to collect as much revenue as possible, it will be appreciated that any diversion of manpower to deal with this new work will affect adversely the working of the department as well as the collection of revenue. A study of the legislation and practice in other Asian countries which have had a lot of experience with this tax will have to be undertaken in order to obtain some guidance in fixing the quantum of such allowances. These, Sir, are the basic problems that have to be tackled in dealing with the proposal as envisaged in the motion. They will have to be carefully considered before a final decision can be taken. There is in existence, Sir, the Economic Committee of the Singapore Council of Ministers, consisting of the Chief Minister as Chairman, the Financial Secretary, the Minister for Commerce and Industry and the Minister for Communications and Works, which considers at policy level matters involving finance and economics. It meets at regular intervals the corresponding Economic Committee of the Federation Executive Council to consider Pan-Malayan matters of which income tax is one. This Committee has been tackling this task. This Committee, Sir, has the benefit of the advice of the Malayan Board of Income Tax constituted under the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance. This Board consists of the Federation Minister of Finance as Chairman, the Singapore Financial Secretary as Deputy Chairman, the Comptroller General of Income Tax and six Unofficials from the Federation and Singapore. The three Singapore representatives are an accountant, Mr J. F. L. Cowin, and two lawyers, Mr A. P. Rajah and Mr Wee Chong Jin, who are familiar with this country and the business conditions in Malaya. Among its main functions, the Board surveys the working of the Ordinance and considers any matters arising out of the provisions of the Ordinance which may be referred to it by either Government. The Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng) refers to the representations made by the Singapore Income Taxpayers Association on matters arising out of the Ordinance. They are of a technical nature and I do not propose to deal with them. The memorandum was actually received yesterday by me and will be carefully considered and submitted to this Economic Committee. 4.58 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion with great pleasure. Allow me the privilege, Sir, to extend my congratulations to the mover of the motion the Member for Queenstown and, at the same time, I would also like to express my great appreciation of the stand taken by the Government by not playing party politics in accepting an important measure moved by the Opposition. Sir, I have three reasons to support the motion. First, I consider that this motion is of great significance as an ideological advancement. I remember that during the Budget sittings for the years 1955 and 1956 regarding the review of income tax, I did mention that the paramount importance of ideological independence should be closely considered. The second part of the motion reads: "... as to suit local conditions, with particular reference to personal reliefs to aged parents and other close relatives solely dependent on the taxpayer." We must understand the true feeling of our Asian tradition. Sir, if you will allow me to quote - although the audience is very poor - one example -

Order. There is no such thing as an "audience" in this Assembly. Will the hon. Member please address his remarks to the Chair?

I am sorry, Sir. I was referring to a friend sitting in the public gallery. I know him personally. He has not only to support a wife, children and parents, but he has also to pay for the secondary education of his brothers. He is only a journalist. How much money can a journalist earn? Yet the Income Tax Department chases him round and round for more money, and he can only claim reliefs for his wife and children. It is his plain duty not only to support his parents, but also to pay for the education of his brothers. This is the custom in our Asian country and it is necessary especially because a social security system has not yet been introduced. Therefore, the first reason why I support the motion is that I believe it is of prime importance to our ideological advancement. The second is that the committee, in the course of its discussions, may be able to recommend measures to encourage badly needed industrialisation in this country. I am sure the Hon. the Minister for Commerce and Industry will be most pleased if measures can be found to encourage not only local investors but also to attract foreign ones as well to boost our industrialisation. The third reason why I support the motion is that quite a number of facts against the Income Tax Ordinance have been given by the hon. Member for Tanglin and therefore the committee can reveal any loopholes in it, evasion of taxes or inefficiency in collecting them. Sir, for these three reasons, I heartily support the motion. Mr John Ede rose -

Is it a point of order?

On the amendment, Sir.

The hon. Member spoke on the original motion. I have indicated earlier on that if any hon. Member moves an amendment, he speaks on the original Question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am much obliged to the Government for accepting my motion. I do not think it is necessary for me to reply. Question, That this Assembly urges upon the Government to set up a committee without delay to review the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance (Cap. 166) with a view to recommending such amendments to the Ordinance as to suit local conditions, with particular reference to personal reliefs to aged parents and other close relatives solely dependent on the taxpayer. put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly urges upon the Government to set up a committee without delay to review the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance (Cap. 166) with a view to recommending such amendments to the Ordinance as to suit local conditions, with particular reference to personal reliefs to aged parents and other close relatives solely dependent on the taxpayer.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise on behalf of the Member in charge of this Bill, who is the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck), and I ask that this item be deferred to 19th June, 1957.

The order is deferred accordingly.

Mr Speaker adjourned the Assembly without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at 5.06 p.m.