Hansard, 1959-01-22

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [21st January, 1959], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 10.01 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the suspension of the debate yesterday, I was making the point that we made approaches to the Federation to recognise a Pan-Malayan economic unit concept, but we have not been successful so far and, in the interim period before we or the next government can succeed to power, we have to take measures to protect our economy by creating a second basis for our economy. Sir, when we consider this point, we have got to divide our approach into three distinct groups. The first is: what is the ideal that is desirable, reasonably? The ideal desirable is a political merger with the Federation. Failing that, of course, the ideal desirable is to have a Pan-Malayan economic unit concept accepted by the Federation. The next point you have to consider is: if the ideal is unattainable within the foreseeable future, what can be done within the realms of possibilities and when can such possibilities come to fruition? For my part, Sir, I have not the slightest doubt that the day will come when, by force of circumstances, Singapore and the Federation will have to recognise that economically they cannot stand alone, each by itself. But again, I have not the slightest doubt that that day will not come quickly and that, before such a day comes, we shall have to convince the Federation that the benefit from such a concept will not only accrue to Singapore but that the benefit is also mutual - that the Federation will stand to benefit as much. It is only when we can prove this to the Federation or when the Federation can learn this because of force of circumstance or by trial and error, that we can be in a position to make them accept that concept of one economic unit. Therefore, the time factor is anybody's guess. For my part, I do not think it would be possible to have this concept accepted by them in the next year or two. Therefore, we come to the third point and that is to accept what is facing us now and to do what we can about it. What is facing us now is that we are unnaturally divided and that we are in a position where, if politicians on both sides are not careful, we could try to destroy each other economically, and possibly go further than that. That is why I have always resisted the Member for Changi and others who have indicated that they would like to fight it out with the Federation. I would say "No". Short of fighting out an economic war with the Federation, in which I have no hesitation in saying that we will come out the worse-

On a point of clarification, Sir.

If the Member will give way.

No, Sir, I think the hon. Member has had enough opportunity. Short of fighting it out, I think we should make all efforts to try to create some things here in Singapore which could counterbalance the difficulties that we are facing now. I know, Sir, it could be said that we promise on our Party platform that we would try to get a merger, but that should not preclude acceptance of the fact, as it stands, that merger is still a faraway dream. But again, this does not mean that we refuse to try to get a merger.

How?

Sir, now I come to the main points raised by the Members of the Opposition in the debate. The first is the point over which there has been quite a lot of Press publicity and to which many Members have referred in different terms - the Member for Tanjong Pagar has put it rather emphatically - and that is this. I refer to the report as it appears in today's Straits Times: "Referring to tax relief measures for pioneer industries approved earlier in today's session, Mr Lee said the tariff Bill was the third major measure in one day. But there was hardly time for the schemes to be brought to fruition before the government went out of office. Mr Lee said the government was producing a spate of legislation in its last few weeks of office." The same comment was made by the Member for Telok Ayer, the Member for Tiong Bahru and various other Members. I want, Sir, to dispel the impression that this is something that has been hurriedly thought of-again in the words of the Member for Tanjong Pagar, "Too many clever things are thought out, spoken out even before they are put down on paper, quoted and then quickly retracted." That is not so. If hon. Members care to stretch their memories back to 1956, they will remember that it was in this House that I made a policy statement on 7th November, 1956, on the Government's economic policy, just as the Mayor made his statement at the beginning of his term of office and said, "We want to put up 200 standpipes." Whether the water goes into the standpipes or not is another matter, but they are there! But mine was a thought-out policy statement. What does this statement say besides assuring foreign capital about freedom of repatriation of profits, creating a suitable climate, giving immigration facilities to skilled workers, technicians, administrative personnel, and so on, giving facilities for the importation of raw materials, even from dollar areas? It goes on to: "(e) Government intends that a survey of the colony's industrial potential and markets be carried out. Inquiries are now being made in order to obtain the services of experts to undertake this survey." Sir, a survey of the Colony's industrial potential and markets is not a thing that can be done overnight. At the moment, we are carrying out a survey of the factories and the present industries obtaining in Singapore and that survey will show how Government can assist. Then it goes on to: "(f) Government intends to establish an Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research for the purpose of investigating and giving advice on the technological and economic aspects of industry. Arrangements have been made to obtain the advice of an expert on the setting up of this Institute." An expert was obtained under the Colombo Plan. The expert made his recommendations to the Government and they were that the Institute should be Pan-Malayan. Negotiations are still going on with the Federation of Malaya and therefore the scheme has not come to fruition. "(g) Government has decided to set up an Industrial Promotion Board with a $1,000,000 revolving fund to give financial assistance to small industries." That has been done. "(h) Government is investigating the question of making tax concessions to industries whose expansion or establishment it is desired to encourage." That was done yesterday. Sir, between announcing the policy and bringing it to fruition, there must be a lapse of time if you have a reasonable democratic government. If you have a dictatorial form of government, they just use the Whip and carry things through. But with a democratic setup, you cannot have that and therefore you have got to give consideration to all the issues that are involved; the revenue issue is involved because income tax is Pan-Malayan. But we passed the Industrial Expansion (Relief from Income Tax) Bill and the Pioneer Industries (Relief from Income Tax) Bill yesterday. These two Bills and the Bill we are debating now were not hurriedly thought of. "Consideration of the extremely difficult and complex problem of tariff protection will be deferred until the industrial potential and markets survey has been completed and studied." Sir, on 7th November, 1956, this programme was thought out. It is not something that the Minister has cleverly thought of overnight and "rushed through", in the words of the Member for Tanjong Pagar. An hon. Member: The Member for Telok Ayer.

"Too many things were spoken out even before they are put on paper." It is preposterous, Sir, to suggest that. It is already the announced policy of the Government. Now, why have two years elapsed before the implementation of this announced policy? The answer lies in the fact that this is a democratic Government. This Government does not do things on the lines of the City Council in Singapore. We do things after getting proper public reaction. We do things after looking into each and every angle, because, to tamper with the economy, Sir, is not, as the Malays put it, a "main-main" business. It is not a business that you just do as the whim and fancy seizes you. And then again, the Member for Tanjong Pagar blithely goes on to say that though he does not oppose protection- "Whilst we [his Party] recognise the changing facets of our economy and that of the surrounding territories, primarily Indonesia and the Federation, we do not think it wise or prudent to have any sudden switches in economic policy." What he means is whether they want to have any switches at all. The switch has come, of course, in the Party policy of the People's Action Party, and that is away from the extreme Left Wing. There is an element now which is trying to woo foreign capital, because they realise that, whilst in the opposition, the extreme Left Wing was the thing to play upon; now that they see that they have a chance to become the Government, they have now got to change the way of thinking of the people and say, "Extreme Left Wingism is bad." So: "While the Party does not oppose what the Minister has termed selected protection for industry, it recognises that the Singapore market consists of only 1½ million people to provide the necessary attraction." That fact we have recognised too, but then where the Member for Tanjong Pagar goes wrong is when he says that while Singapore could give protection to 1.5 million people, the Federation could give it to 7 million people. In numbers, yes, but if anybody wishes to analyse reports, in purchasing power, it is not a ratio of 7 : 1.5. but it is a ratio of 2 : 1. Our consumption is one-third Pan-Malayan. The Federation's consumption is two-thirds Pan Malayan, and to all intents and purposes, for the industrialists, it is the purchasing power ratio that matters and not the population ratio that matters. Then the hon. Member attacks me, Sir, by saying, "The Minister appears to be a man crying out for recognition." Sir, the fact that I quoted my speech at Seattle in the Colombo Plan meeting indicated to him that I was crying out for recognition. Sir, no such thing was in my mind. Why I went to the length of putting up a full case to this House was because I recognise that this House is democratically constituted. I could have spoken a formal sentence "That I beg to move", and sat down and got the Whip to pass the Bill through. It could have been done, as far as the Government side was concerned, with a speech lasting three minutes. Let the Opposition take two hours if they wish to. But, Sir, we recognise that this House is democratically constituted and we would not fetter the democratic expression of opinion. Therefore I went to great lengths to put down on record why Government was doing these things. The other fact is that in law you cannot express intentions. You only express facts, but the intentions are also important for the future, because the facts as put in the law can be malad-ministered by a future government. It is then that the intentions which are on record can be brought out and the battle can be fought. That is why I went to these lengths. It is not to get recognition that I was a clever man trying to put something across the House. Then the Member for Tanjong Pagar said of me, "The reason why nobody paid any attention to him was that they knew what he said did not count." That indicates the ego in the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. Only what he says counts and what other people say does not count. It is, Sir, the bad fortune of Singapore that there are politicians who are ready to ignore the realities of the economic situation for their own political ends. The Member for Tanjong Pagar criticised the Government when he said that after thinking out clever things they were quickly retracted. It is no such thing, Sir. The policy was announced on 13th August last and the Government intends to carry out that policy as announced by me. If the law in its drafting can be brought to a state where that policy could be expressed clearly, this Government is not going to stand in the way of such clear expression in the law. There is no question of retraction or withdrawal of policy. The Bill is going through. If it is a matter of quibbling over words in the law, if the law can be more clearly defined, I am not going to stand in the way so long as the policy that we want can be carried out. Then, Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar talked of managerial and technical skills. Sir, we have recognised technical skill. We have the Polytechnic running now to provide technical skill. It is not something that is now freshly thought out, but the curious thing, Sir, is this, and this is found in the People's Action Party's fourth Anniversary Celebrations Souvenir, "Our Economic Future" by Dr Goh Keng Swee: "In order to do this [that is, to industrialise] we must train a cadre of managerial and technical personnel to the highest standard of professional skill as well as in Socialist principles." First, the Party cannot get away from cadres. We had the cadres that started the fires in 1955 and 1956. Now the Party is going to have another set of cadres to quell the fires which have frightened capital away. Another set of cadres to go down on their knees to foreign capital and say, "No, we are good boys." Then you are going to have a third set of cadres to train them in managerial and technical skills as well as in Socialist principles. Yet here they say that Socialist principles cannot be applied to Singapore. It is there also. I do not know, Sir, whether this going around in various cadres is going to help Singapore, but it evidently shows the confused way of thinking of the Party. Sir, the advanced technical and managerial skills are not the final answer, as is suggested by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. The final answer, Sir, if you want to be competitive, is automation. Even with a hundred trained technical men, if you have hand production, you cannot be competitive. A high degree of mechanisation is the answer and that means that Singapore has to look out not for five industries employing fifty persons each, but a hundred industries employing five persons each. That is the ultimate answer. Just having the technical knowledge is not the ultimate answer. What is happening in Europe? They have all the technical skill, and yet they are highly mechanized. Sir, I now leave the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I had hoped that he would be here in the House. We go on to the Member for Tiong Bahru. When I quoted all those restrictions, he asked why I did not do anything to abolish those restrictions. If he had gone into the constitutional aspects of Singapore, he would have noticed that defence under the new Constitution still remains in the hands of the British Government. There are certain aspects of trade which are related to defence and, frankly, I think the position will be forced in the next Constitution. If there is an unreasonable government, they will force the position to an issue where either Britain will have to suspend the Constitution to see that its economic obligations, as far as Communist countries are concerned, are not flouted, or something new will have to come out. But that is a matter that this Government cannot touch. Then he asked me whether tariffs would apply to goods coming from the Federation. The answer is that they would. Just as tariffs apply to Singapore goods going to the Federation, they would apply to goods coming from the Federation. Then a lot of talk took place about Hongkong. "Hongkong has 3,300 factories and cheap production. Why cannot the Singapore Government do the same for Singapore?" Now, Sir, it is only little children not versed in the situation obtaining in the world, who do not understand the difference between Hongkong and Singapore.

Order. If the expression "little children" is meant to refer to honourable Members of the Assembly, then I think that expression is unparliamentary and I ask the Minister to withdraw it.

Sir, I thought I was paying a compliment as far as age is concerned! Ladies will be flattered if we refer to them as-

Order. I do not want any debate on my ruling. I ask the Minister to withdraw the expression.

I withdraw it, Sir, I defer to your ruling. When China was taken over by the Communist Government, there was a flight of capital and people, who had industrial experience, to Hongkong. So what you had was an accumulation in Hongkong around 1950 of technical skill and knowhow, and idle capital lying there. Then on top of that came the flight of refugees. And so you have the third factor, and that is cheap refugee labour available by the thousands. Now a combination of these three factors gave Hongkong a windfall. The same conditions do not obtain here. Then again, Sir - and this is in reply not only to the Member for Tiong Bahru but also to the Member for Telok Ayer who said that the Government had spent most of the reserves, and taxation had gone up - this Government is an elected Socialist Government. This Government is pledged to the electorate to do things in their interests, to bring about social legislation. If you compare the number of social legislative measures that this Government has brought about with the number during the last 140 years of the Colony - you will find that ours outnumber them all: the Clerks Employment Bill, the Factories Bill, the Shop Assistants Employment Bill and so many others. This Government has put up cheap public housing by the thousands. In fact, the housing that has been put up during the three years of the life of this Government exceeds the housing put up by the S.I.T. during all its previous ten years. About half the rents are subsidised. This Government has built schools by the hundreds. I remember, Sir, offhand, in 1956, we built 23 schools against 7 that were built in the previous years of 1954 or 1955. The amount given to Chinese education, I believe - if I am not wrong - rose from $3 million to $13 million. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot save money, keep your taxation down and yet provide all these services. They do not come out of the air. But if the hon. Member wants to have the same conditions as those obtaining in Hongkong, where human beings live a sub-human life, let him put it up publicly on his platform when he stands for election and then see. Let the people decide whether they want to live like animals in hovels and in shacks, with their children running about half-naked in the streets, playing in the ditches, with no hope of getting education; and whether they want to work for a sub-standard wage of a couple of Hongkong dollars, toiling and striving with no holidays, no freedom and no leisure, and the children dying if they catch a sickness, because there are not enough medical facilities. Let the people decide whether they want all this, or whether they want what is obtaining in Singapore, where people sometimes are spoilt to the extent that if a bus stop is 200 yards away they say they want the bus stop removed nearer to their houses. That again is the other extreme. The Member for Tiong Bahru also alleged that Singapore earns more dollars than any other country. I have refuted that last month and I would ask him to look up the Hansard. It is dollars arising from the Federation and other countries that we earn and not our own dollars. The other big point which arose was referred to, I think, by the Member for Tiong Bahru, the Member for Tanjong Pagar and by some other Members. "Industries established in Singapore will produce goods at a higher cost than industries established in Europe and other places." The Member for Telok Ayer used the words "penalising the whole population to buy at a higher price". That is not true, Sir. He must recognise the fact that we are buying mostly European goods at the moment, and that labour in Europe is much more expensive than labour here, even though Singapore's labour may be expensive compared with Hongkong, China, Japan and India. But European and American labour is much more expensive. A country like England has very little raw materials of its own. It imports all the raw materials just as we will have to do. There is no question that we can produce cheaper goods than Europe. If we are as mechanised as they are, and if our methods of production are as streamlined as theirs are, then we can probably enter the export market. Sir, these Members seem to have taken it for granted that Singapore cannot produce anything cheap, and yet if you take any consumer goods, say the baby's Gripe Water, for instance, you pay $1.10 for a bottle; the stuff that goes into the bottle could probably be bought in any condiment shop for ten cents, and you distil it and so on. During the Japanese Occupation, I remember one person who made gripe water which was almost similar to the imported brand and he sold it at forty or fifty cents a bottle. Now, what are you paying $1.10 a bottle for? It is for the brand, because the people of Singapore have been accustomed to use the brand for 140 years. They go for the brand and they pay the price for the brand - not for the stuff that goes into the bottle. I do not say that the stuff is bad. I say that the stuff is excellent, but it does not mean that we cannot produce the same excellent stuff if we wish to at a cheaper cost? What are you paying for when you buy foreign goods? You are paying for foreign labour. You are not helping your own men to gain employment. You are paying for foreign production. You are paying for foreign economy. Col. Lyle's report is enlightening, Sir. It says at page 8: "In short, until economic union is achieved a tyre factory is not a good risk and the people of Malaya for some time will probably continue to sell rubber at 90 cents per pound and buy back tyres at $3.60 per pound, the difference going abroad to support the labour of foreign countries." Sir, we have been blinded by a lot of propaganda in the past - propaganda that colonialism is good; foreign goods are better than ours; we are an inferior people, and therefore we cannot produce; today China is a producing country, and it can produce. I do not say it out of spite, but it is a fact. Japan too has in the past shown that it can produce as well, and I do not see why we cannot. "In fact, three-quarters of everything a Singaporean owns and three-quarters of all he consumes is imported and thereby three-quarters of his income has gone in the past and is going in the present to support labour and capital in foreign countries." That statement appears at page 15 of Col. Lyle's Report. Sir, there are people like the Member for Telok Ayer - and other titled gentry, who look for more titles - who in the past would not even murmur when the Government put an embargo on 200 items of trade with certain countries, but would cry their loudest if an elected government tried to help local people to set up some industries so as to increase production, so that our imports could be cut down. They are the type of' people who pose as champions of the people. "A 140-year policy", says the Member for Telok Ayer, "is to be changed in a rush". It is not in a rush. Two years ago I said that the question would be considered. It cannot be in a rush, and that is why the delay has occurred, and that is why this Bill has come at such a late stage. The Member for Telok Ayer seems to endorse the 140-year policy - a colonial policy. He seems to live in the colonial era still. Then he says that we will kill all the entrepot trade and people will become unemployed. Sir, a man can cry "Fire", or "Tiger", or "Wolf" and so on, but what are the facts? I have explained the facts and I hope the people will understand that it is not just because a man shouts that the Government will kill trade, that the entrepot trade will go, that everything will be finished, that they will all become unemployed, all this will take place. The fact is that the Government wants to put people into employment, not to create unemployment. Therefore, the administration of this law will only be where it is advantageous to Singapore. I have repeated that hundreds of times until I am blue in the face. Then the Member say, "Taxes have gone up. Who foots the bill? The taxpayers; the voters." It is not the voters. The voters have got the benefit of cheap education and hospitals. The bill is footed by the man who makes a profit. This is not an anti-social measure - I can understand the Member for Telok Ayer objecting to this measure. He has used words like "suicidal", "throttle", "ruin", "scrap", "madness" - possibly hoping that the newspapers would have big headlines for these words. Unfortunately for him, Sir, they have not. But these are the common tactics of politicians to make propaganda capital. I do not blame him for that, Sir, nor would I blame the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I do not blame the P.A.P. for having somersaulted in their policies. And then the Member for Telok Ayer says I gave flimsy excuses for other restrictions which were no excuse for passing this Bill. Sir, I did not give flimsy excuses that because of the other restrictions, we are putting, in this Bill, more restrictions. No. What I gave was to justify that there are people who would not shout when certain things were done by the colonial government, but who would shout their loudest if an elected government tried to do things that are good for the people. Sir, though he says that the next government has to plan, I say that the present Government must govern till the last day of its life, and that government is continuous and cannot pause. Economic conditions do not wait for the changes of government or for party politicians to manoeuvre. Then he says, "Corruption might creep in. So why have a law that might give way to corruption?" Sir, there are hundreds of laws that we have in which the chance for corruption exists, and it is public knowledge that corruption exists to a certain extent in many places. It is a matter of pinpointing it. The fact that corruption exists is not a reason for not passing laws. If that were so, then I think all our laws should be scrapped. Then, Sir, the big attack he makes is that certain Ministers in this Government have changed parties and therefore have no mandate. Sir, he himself first stood as an Independent, then he joined the Liberal-Socialists Party, and therefore his mandate, by the same reasoning, ceases. The Member for Changi posed two questions. I have answered one question as to whether an approach has been made to the Federation Government, and the second question was, "Has the Government accepted Col. Lyle's Report?" No, because Col. Lyle's Report came out recently and the Government was anxious that since it has so much that the public should understand, it should be tabled and that consideration could be given later. It is being considered, but it was not held back, because Government might take time to consider it. It is of the utmost importance that the economic position of today be made known to the public and that is why it was tabled and published. Mr Tan Siak Kew said I was trying to justify this move by saying that it is the Labour Front's platform. It is not a question of my trying to justify the move, Sir. What I was trying was to answer the criticism that I have no mandate. It is not justifying because it was a Labour Front platform, but rather saying that I have a mandate. It was on my platform when I stood for the election. And so was it on all the Labour Fronters' who stood for the elections. Coming to Mr Tan Siak Kew, he referred to cigarettes as an example - and what an unfounded criticism he made on cigarettes! First, he said that a lot of people would lose trade if cigarettes were taken over by government factories. There is no intention of establishing government factories unless foreign interests do not play ball with us. I said so - 49 per cent foreign capital will be invited to participate. 49 per cent local private capital, not government capital, and 2 per cent only government capital. But if foreign interests do not play ball, then I would say 51 per cent will be government capital. So his criticism is wrong. Secondly, he said a lot of persons would become unemployed because there are a lot of people dealing in cigarettes. Sir, the import of cigarettes is the monopoly of three or four firms here at the moment. The biggest import of cigarettes is made by one firm and that is seen by the answer the Hon. the Acting Financial Secretary supplied to this House yesterday. Therefore, it will be a matter of taking away the business of one importing firm and giving it to one manufacturing firm. It is common sense that when you manufacture, you employ more people than when you import. The distribution machinery required for local manufacture will still remain the same as that for the distribution of imported cigarettes - the same number of wholesalers (I do not say the same people, in order to distinguish them) and the same number of retailers will be required for the distribution of locally manufactured cigarettes if the imports are stopped. So the retailers will not be harmed, the wholesalers will not be harmed, and the number engaged in the retail or wholesale cigarettes trade will not be affected. The only harm would fall on the importing monopoly. Against that would be the benefit of employment to the local people, the profits remaining in local hands or that percentage of the profits which is local capital, or related to the local capital. remaining in local hands, and cutting down on imports to a certain extent - not cutting down entirely, because tobacco will have to be imported from the same countries, from America and from Rhodesia, it will be the same quality of cigarettes, and cigarettes are not a complicated thing to manufacture; I have studied the process. Today, Thailand is producing exact replicas of well-known brands and they have been accepted. It is a Thai Government monopoly there. The profit margin is very big in cigarettes and therefore that profit, or the major part of it, will remain here. We will have to import the tobacco and therefore pay for it, but then we do not pay for the labour; we do not pay for the extra freight charges on cigarettes which is more than what you pay for the compressed bales of tobacco. And so how unfounded this criticism could be, Sir - this is a case in point.

It will reduce revenue.

It will not reduce revenue, Sir, I have said, "You replace your import revenue by putting an excise revenue duty in the same proportion." And you do not pay higher for your cigarettes; you sell it at the same price. I have studied the case - a medium type straight Virginia cigarettes costs about a cent per stick; today it is being sold wholesale to the wholesalers at 1.6 cents - the profit factor is half a cent - and duty is added, after which it reaches the public. If you take the duty element away, you will find that the profit factor will still be the same whether you manufacture it here or overseas. An hon. Member: Time will tell.

You do not lose! The same duty element, instead of being put on the import of cigarettes, will be applied to the manufacture of cigarettes as an excise. And therefore your revenue is the same. There is not the slightest question of loss of revenue. That is again another piece of propaganda that is being publicised by affected foreign interests. Of course, I can understand the desire of certain political parties to fall head over heels at the feet of foreign interests. They would not care to look as to which foreign interest is advantageous to us and which is not. I differentiate - what is advantageous, I keep; what is not advantageous, I say that we must try and push ourselves into it.

Suicide!

And that is the point about politics. God help the people of Singapore! I think, Sir, I have answered the Opposition in sufficient detail. I am sorry the Member for Tanjong Pagar was not here earliest, but I am not going to repeat it; he can look up the Hansard.

Read it back on a future occasion!

Sir, yesterday in replying to the Member for Tanjong Pagar on one of his criticisms - I forgot what it was. But now that he is here, I might as well take the opportunity of answering him. He said that I react very quickly to criticism. His definition of a politician should be a cold, hard, calculating, and scheming person. Sir, I think we can be cold, hard, calculating and scheming [Interruption]-

Order.

-but we do not calculate and do not scheme where the rice bowl of the people is concerned. That is more important than filling seats and becoming Ministers. I consider that is more important, and that the rice bowl of the people should not be placed in jeopardy because certain politicians are scheming to get into power. Sir, I beg to move.

The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As many as are of the opinion say, "Aye". Some hon. Members: Aye.

To the contrary, say "No".

No.

I think the Ayes have it? The Ayes have it.

Division, Sir!

I have declared the result of the voting. The Ayes have it. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill-[Mr J. M. Jumabhoy]. Bill considered in Committee. 10.44 a.m. Clause 1-

There is a note, In page 1, line 5, (1) to leave out "No. 3"; (2) to leave out "1958" and insert "1959". That will be done. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2- 10.45 a.m.

Hon. Members will have noticed in the Supplementary Order Paper that there are two amendments which are to a certain extent allied. One is in the name of the Minister: In page 1, line 11, to leave out "all" and insert "any". The other is in the name of the Member for Farrer Park, which inter alia proposes to leave out "all goods" and insert the words* as shown in the Supplementary Order Paper. This will bring into play paragraph 4 (d) of Standing Order 28. Hon. Members will find that at page 13 of the Standing Orders. I will read the Standing Order to refresh the minds of hon. Members. It reads: * The words are as follows- "those goods recommended by a Tariff Board to be constituted by the Minister under the chairmanship of an economic expert and which shall consist of equal number of members representing the local manufacturers, entrepot traders and consumers." "If the Speaker or Chairman, before putting a question to leave out certain words, is informed that a Member wishes to move an amendment to leave out part only of these words and if he is of opinion that the proposed amendment of which he is so informed is substantially a new amendment, he shall, if possible, put the question to leave out only so much of the original amendment as is unaffected by the second amendment; but if that question is agreed to, the whole of the words proposed in the original amendment to be left out shall be deemed to have been ordered to be left out." I shall therefore call the amendment in the name of the Member for Farrer Park first, and then propose at the appropriate time that the word "goods" proposed to be left out, be left out. If that is agreed, then in the words of the Standing Order, "the whole of the words" - that is both words, "all goods" - "shall be deemed to have been ordered to be left out", and the question on the words to be inserted will be proceeded with. If the hon. Member's proposal fails, then the Minister's amendment will be proceeded with. I therefore call upon the hon. Member for Farrer Park to move his amendment.

Sir, to fit in with my amendment the Hon. Minister's amendment will read: 'by deleting from the definition of "dutiable goods" appearing therein the words "intoxicating liquors, tobacco or petroleum" and substituting therefor the words "any goods" instead of "all goods"'. Sir, based on that amendment, I will move my amendment, In page 1, line 11, to leave out '"any goods"' and insert- '"those goods recommended by a Tariff Board to be constituted by the Minister under the chairmanship of an economic expert and which shall consist of equal number of members representing the local manufacturers, entrepot traders and consumers" '.

Order. The Minister's amendment has not as yet been put to the House, and therefore has not as yet been carried. So the hon. Member's amendment is the amendment as shown in the Supplementary Order Paper, that is, to leave out "all goods" and insert the words as shown.

Sir, my amendment to this Bill is, in fact, in sympathy with the aims now declared by this Bill. But it seeks to ensure that protection tariff is enforced without undue hardship to the consumers and without great damage to the entrepot trade. If protection is to be granted to any local industry, that claim must come from the industry itself. Secondly, that claim must be thoroughly investigated in the interests of the consumers, the entrepot traders and the local manufacturers. Sir, the Minister has almost agreed in principle to the need for such a body and has created a Protection Advisory Committee. But the Committee is purely a departmental committee and it is not embodied in any permanent laws of the Island. I am referring, Sir, to this Committee. This is an Advisory Committee to protect local manufacturing industries. Paragraph 2: "To investigate individual applications by manufacturers and potential manufacturers in Singapore for protection and to advise the Minister for Commerce and industry on the necessity for protection and the method of protection whether by tariff or quantitative restrictions and extensive protective measures having due regard to-

Sir, I rise to oppose this amendment. It is true that I have voluntarily implemented the system of having a Tariff Protection Committee. I have named a panel of persons from whom I will draw the Committee on each particular case. I have fixed the terms of reference as indicated by the Member for Farrer Park -

Mr Speaker, Sir, it was not my intention to speak on this subject because the whole show, as I described it yesterday, is a bad one. I am sure the incoming Government will scrap what we are passing today. However, in any country where duties are levied, there is a Tariff Board. The members of this Board are selected from various interested organisations so that their interests are protected, and the affairs are administered by responsible persons. Of course, the final choice is with the Government whether to accept or reject their recommendations. That would be a wise move, if at all any Committee is appointed. It would not restrict the Government or over-ride the Committee or Tariff Board, or whatever you call it. But whatever that may be named, the representatives should be selected from those who have an interest in this matter, and also those who have opposing interests, so that both sides could give their views and then recommendations could be made to the Minister or to the Government. I have no strong views on this, but the idea underlying this suggestion is quite good, because this body will be representing the manufacturers, entrepot traders and consumers. It is not correct to say that the Tariff Board will recommend items on which duties will be levied, like textiles or produce. It has been definitely said that they will not, and they cannot interfere in that. This aspect of the argument on the part of the Minister is quite wrong, but, at the same time, I do insist not only on this Government but any other Government committee to ensure that the responsible bodies should nominate persons representing particular interests, and that the final authority lies with the Minister or the Government.

Sir, the Minister has just said that in his next amendment he is going to change "all" goods to "any" goods. But "any goods" could be "all goods". If you want to tax "all goods", it is possible to tax "any goods", and "any goods" could be "all goods". So that the amendment from "all goods" to "any goods" is really not very encouraging. My amendment reads "those goods recommended by a Tariff Board to be constituted by the Minister. . .". I have never suggested that the Government should be the puppet of this body. It should be constituted by the Minister, and if the recommendation of the Tariff Board is against the interest of the Minister or the Government, the Minister or the Government need not accept it. Moreover, this Advisory Committee as set up by the Minister could be dismissed at any time. It is not represented by any particular interest. The Minister simply calls for certain traders and forms a Committee. That Committee is obligatory to the Minister, and is not responsible to any particular interest. I am quoting one paragraph at page 27 of Col. Lyle's Report. There are two recommendations given regarding this Tariff Board. The first one is: "I would suggest that you establish the Legislative framework for your Anti-Dumping Regulations at the earliest possible date. These, of course, are complementary and an integral part of any protection granted to industry. One has little effect without the other so, if you will soon be in a position to grant protection to certain industries, it is imperative that the appropriate Anti-Dumping Regulations can be applied simultaneously." Of course, the Minister for Commerce and Industry has very faithfully followed this particular recommendation. He has applied some restrictions on Chinese textiles.

They have been lifted.

The second one is: "I would suggest that you include four or five representatives from industry on the roster of your Protection Advisory Committee. I have called on at least ten firms interested in securing Protection and without exception they have made this suggestion forcefully. They submit that the present roster, for business reasons, is import minded and that a balancing industrial point of view on the Committee is a necessity if the applications are to receive fair consideration." This makes my point clearer. Of the two recommendations, the Minister has accepted one. The second recommendation in the Report particularly says that the roster - that is the Committee - which he has formed is import minded. That shows that they have only one interest. The Hon. Minister just calls for certain importers and forms a panel, and he says that they are the Advisory Committee, and they are going to decide the fate of Singapore. We do not know whether they represent the consumers' interests, the local industrialists or the entrepot traders. What I suggest is that if you have a panel, that panel should at least be represented by various sections of the people. That would be satisfactory. But your Advisory Committee is only a Committee composed of certain importers, and they would never work in the interests of other people.

Dealing with the Member for Telok Ayer again, Sir, he is in love with the incoming Government. I hope we will be returned, and he can be in love with us then! The final choice, he says, is with the Government. But according to this amendment, it is not, and that is what I have been trying to point out. Sir, the Member for Farrer Park's amendment came in before mine did. Therefore, he intended section 11 - clause 3 of the original amending Bill - to stand. That would have made section 11 read as follows: "There shall be charged, levied and paid such duties in the Colony as may be prescribed from time to time by the Governor in Council . . . on goods...". Something like that. This means that the Governor in Council would have the power to prescribe and to levy duties on any goods. The effect of the original amending Bill would have been that. Now under the definition of "goods", the hon. Member for Farrer Park seeks to define it in such a way that those goods shall be only those that are recommended, and therefore if the Governor in Council wants to impose duties on tobacco, petroleum or liquor, he cannot do so without a recommendation from the Tariff Board. Now that is the position - it is a complete somersault to what we have now. Secondly, the Member for Telok Ayer said the Tariff Board will recommend. That is exactly what I have proposed - that the Tariff Advisory Committee will recommend to the Minister. The allegation which the Member for Farrer Park made just now is that the Committee does not represent the interests as set out here. I see a danger there. I would love to get on the Tariff Advisory Board in this fashion. You get three Chambers of Commerce inevidently that is what the Member for Telok Ayer has in mind, that they should represent some groups like the Chambers of Commerce and so on. We get the three Chambers of Commerce; we get three manufacturers, and we get three consumers. I do not know whom we can find from the consumers. There is no representative body, and it is anybody's guess who is a consumer and who is not. The same claim could be put up by the Chambers of Commerce. Now, what will happen? You will get a tug-of-war between the importing interests (three representatives) and the manufacturing interests (three representatives) with the consumers sitting on the fence to be lobbied about. Then you will see that unless it is recommended by the Tariff Board, the Governor in Council will impose no duty. He can, of course, refuse because the law does not say "he shall" but "he may". But the chances are that if the Governor in Council wants to impose duties on any goods, he has to refer to the Tariff Advisory Board. Now the Tariff Advisory Board knows full well that the Minister has it in mind to impose such duties, and therefore he will not refuse if they recommend. So they consider the case and they recommend. As soon as the recommendation goes through - it will take probably a week or two before the Governor in Council meets and puts it through-then all the rich people, who sit on the Tariff Board and who know that duties are coming, would love to hoard those goods and become millionaires overnight. I would like to get on to such a Committee if I am not a Minister! This House should see the danger of such a position-

On a point of information, Sir, Is it proper for the Minister so frankly to reveal his baser instincts in this House?

I am not revealing my baser instincts, Sir, I am just expressing to the House how businessmen would feel when there are opportunities for making money like that. It is, therefore, dangerous to have a Board which has interested parties. The ideal would be to have persons who are independent in their judgment. Therefore, they should not be drawn from any representative body but from people who are able to balance the good and the bad - the importing interests and manufacturing interests - and to come to conclusions which are most beneficial to the economy of Singapore, as set down in the terms of reference. Their deliberations should be independent of affiliation to any side - the importing or the manufacturing side. That is what I have set up and I have given the terms of reference. I have picked out individuals who I consider have integrity and who will be capable of exercising their judgment impartially. I was bullied by the Manufacturers' Association: "most of these people are merchants, they are not manufacturers." I said to them, "I am not going to put you manufacturers in, because you are the people who would apply. I cannot make you judge your own cases." I have not chosen them as importers, but I have chosen them as persons who I think have integrity and who will consider the cases impartially. Now, I have indicated to the hon. Sir Ewen Fergusson what I have done and set out in my statement. If that can be incorporated into the law, I have no objection to accepting such an amendment. But this is something that goes beyond that and therefore I cannot accept it. Amendment negatived.

Sir, I move, In page 1, line 11, to leave out "all" and insert "any". This is a drafting amendment, Sir, in order to do away with the impression created by the word "all". In fact, the definition reads: "dutiable goods" means "all goods" in the old one or "any goods" now, as I have proposed, which are subject to the levy of a duty. Therefore, the definition is one that is referred to later in the Bill where the context requires the definition to be applied. For instance; a man with dutiable goods without authority or without having paid duty will be fined, and so on and so forth. The definition is not one that gives the Government power to exercise any duty imposing functions. But in order to remove the misunderstanding, I thought it would be better if the word "any" were inserted, and therefore I made this amendment. 11.15 a.m.

Sir, the explanatory statement giving the objects and reasons says that "this Bill amends the Customs Ordinance to extend, the power to impose duties to cover all goods". Would it be fair to say, if the word "any" had occurred to the Minister before, that it would now read "to extend the power to impose duties to cover any goods" and whether the change makes any real difference.

Sir, the explanatory statement is always in the Bill that is tabled for First Reading as the Bill stands then. The explanatory statement does not become part of the law when the Bill has had its Third Reading, and therefore it is to be ignored.

I was intrigued to hear the Minister say just now that he thought it would be better to change the word "all' to "any". Sir, when I was a student, I was told that one of the most important functions of a legislature is to legislate accurately and precisely, and there are very highly paid and highly skilled persons who make it their lifetime task to decide whether the word "all" or the word "any" should be put in each particular context. May I ask the Minister whether it was, as he stated, his own thought that it was better, or had he taken advice on that thought?

Sir, the word "all" is as suitable as the word "any". I had no objection to the drafting of the original amendment when it read "all", because it was a perfectly suitable word, and there could be no misunderstanding on that. But because of the impression that was created in certain Chinese papers when they read the word "all", I suggested to the Attorney-General whether it would not be better if we could put some other word. I asked what about "any"? And he said that "any" was as good as "all" in this context.

Sir, I am still doubtful. Let us suppose there are twenty items of goods. The Hon. Minister comes in with this Ordinance and says "all goods". Even if he has amended it to read "any goods", these twenty items could be taxed. Am I right in assuming that "any goods" could also mean "all goods"?

Would the Attorney-General care to express his opinion on this technical matter?

I am sure the Attorney-General would like to take this opportunity to express his opinion. I would like to take this opportunity to dispel this wrong impression. I think the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar understands full well, as a lawyer, that this clause is one relating to the definition in this Bill, unless the context otherwise requires. The original expression "dutiable goods" means intoxicating liquors, tobacco or petroleum on which duty has not been paid. But my first amendment in the amending Bill was that "dutiable goods" means all goods on which duty has not been paid. It does not mean that because it is there in the definition that the Governor in Council can impose duties. It means that where the context requires, the definition will be used. It means, in short, that "dutiable goods" shall mean any goods on which duty has not been paid, and therefore, if you come to a clause later on which says that "any person having in his possession dutiable goods without having paid duty shall be liable to prosecution", then the word "dutiable goods" could apply to any goods on which duty has been imposed under section 11 of the Ordinance. It is just a matter of definition. I do not see the difficulty there.

Just to make it clear, Sir, that the definition, by leaving out "dutiable goods", which is restricted to intoxicating liquors, tobacco and petroleum and now covers all goods or any goods, which we agree seems to be exactly the same thing - does it mean that section 11 is the only operative section in the Customs Ordinance and that this definition does not mean that the law will now be that the administration can impose duty on all goods because of that definition?

No, Sir, It does not. Sir Ewen Fergusson is right in thinking that the important, operative, section will still remain section 11. On this curious business between "all" and "any", although I personally was not consulted, I have thought about it, and in my opinion "any" is a much better word to use in this particular context. I cannot take credit for the making of the change, because I was not myself involved. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 1, to leave out lines 12 to 16. This, Sir, is now not necessary. In the original amending Bill this was put in because section 11 was going to be amended by the inclusion of the word "goods", which would have given the Governor in Council the power to levy duty on any goods - this, of course, should be read in conjunction with the past definition on which we have been debating. Sir, section 11 is going to be more defined as to the type of goods on which the Governor in Council can impose duty, that is, manufactured goods needing protection and so on, and not textiles. I think the definition of "goods" is not necessary any more, and therefore it is deleted. Amendment agreed to.

There are consequential amendments*. They will be made as shown on the Supplementary Order Paper. * The consequential amendments are as follows: (1) In page 1, line 8, to leave out "(a) "; (2) In page 1, line 11, to leave out "; and" and insert a full-stop. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3-

There is in page 32 of the Supplementary Order Paper a notice of an amendment in the name of the Member for Farrer Park. I take it that he is not moving? Perhaps the Member for Farrer Park will indicate? The mind of the Member for Farrer Park is far away! Will the Member for Farrer Park indicate whether he is moving his amendment to clause 3? [In page 2, line 6, to leave out '"goods"' and insert '"dutiable goods" '.]

No, Sir.

His amendment is then taken out of the Supplementary Order Paper. Question proposed, "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, I propose to negative the inclusion of the present clause 3. As hon. Members will have seen in the Notices of Amendments, I propose, when the clause is negatived, to insert a new clause to supersede the present one. The present clause, as it stands, gives the Governor in Council the power to impose a duty on anything he likes; but, in accordance with the intention declared in my statement, and because of the fear expressed by the trade that there might be a misuse of the powers by the Governor in Council, I am now going to substitute the present clause by a new clause which gives the Governor in Council more clearly defined powers.

Question put, and negatived. Clause 3 accordingly disagreed to. New clause 3- 'Amendment of 3. Section 11 of the Customs Ordinance is hereby amended- section 11 (a) by deleting subsections (2) to (5) inclusive thereof and substituting therefor the following: - "(2) Where it appears to the Governor in Council that, having regard to the need for protecting any industry which is established or is about to be established for the manufacture of any goods in the Colony and to the interests of the entrepot trade of the Colony in respect of such goods, it is expedient to impose duties on the import of such goods, he may by order published in the Gazette prescribe the duties to be levied and paid on such goods imported into the Colony and such duties shall thereupon be charged, levied and paid: Provided that no duties shall be charged or levied under this subsection on any textiles imported into the Colony. (3) Any order made by the Governor in Council under subsection (1) of this section shall be presented to the Legislative Assembly as soon as may be after publication and if a resolution is passed pursuant to a motion notice whereof has been given for a sitting day not later than the first available sitting day of the Assembly next after the expiry of one month from the date when such order is so presented annulling the order or any part thereof as from a specified date, such order or such part thereof, as the case may be, shall thereupon become void as from such date but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order."; and (b) by renumbering the existing subsection (6) thereof as subsection (4).'.-[Mr J. M. Jumabhoy]. Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir, I move, "That the clause be read a Second time." I think I have given sufficient reasons for the inclusion of this clause, and therefore, it is not necessary for me to elaborate further.

Sir, I beg to move, In line 5, after "Where", to insert "on consideration of the report of a committee of not less than three persons appointed for the purpose by the Minister by notification in the Gazette in respect of any goods specified in that notification".

May I have that in writing, please? Amendment handed in.

The hon. Member does not have extra copies by any chance?

Yes, Sir. Copies of the amendment handed in.

Sir, most people who give serious thought to the future of Singapore must have sighed with some relief when the Minister gave notice of an amendment to his original proposal under the Customs Ordinance. Many were startled at the overwhelming powers which were sought and which would have armed any Council of Ministers with the right to change the economic structure of Singapore overnight. I do not think it is enough to state in a speech that the powers would never be used for any such suicidal purpose, for how binding on future legislatures are the present good intentions? When powers are needed, they should be restricted to the minimum necessary. I congratulate the Minister on having bowed to responsible public opinion and produced a measure which goes some way to restricting interference with the free movement of trade to those goods which might be capable of manufacture - and, we hope, efficient manufacture in Singapore. Nevertheless, there will be certain interference with the movement of trade, and one is concerned about the restrictions and with the difficulties which there will be of policing any goods which come under control in an island like Singapore. 11.30 a.m. By restrictions, I mean, Sir, not just duties. It is a fact that once controls are imposed they tend to need expansion, because evasions are encouraged and then something else has got to be policed. If the administration, no matter how well-meaning, is armed with too great powers, they can be ill-used, because frequently it is the easy way out. Because the introduction of protective tariffs is a far more serious matter, in my opinion, than some of the other measures which have been introduced to encourage new manufactures in Singapore, I am anxious that full opportunity should be given to the public to consider tariffs before they are introduced. That is why I was prepared to move an amendment making the introduction of duties for this purpose subject to it being passed first by the Legislature and not, as under the present proposals, that you put the tariffs on first and then argue about them afterwards; because, even if they were thrown out by the Legislature afterwards, a considerable amount of trouble and interruption to trade will have taken place. I know that in the case of revenue duties such as those imposed on tobacco and spirits, it is absolutely necessary for the administration to be able to move quickly, suddenly and unexpectedly, because there are large quantities of these goods in bonded warehouses, and the moment there is any hint of an increase in duty, they can be moved immediately. The same considerations do not arise with goods which are being protected for the purpose of manufacture. Nobody is likely to be carrying large stocks just ready to defeat the revenue collectors. In his speech, the Hon. the Minister when introducing the Bill indicated he had set up a Tariff Advisory Committee and that they would examine any of these proposals. That being the case, I feel that, if we are examined by this Committee and that enough notice is given to the public before the matter is considered by the Governor in Council, that would help me to feel that the administration is tied down to certain limits. For that reason I move this amendment.

Sir, this puts into the law the machinery that is exactly as I have set out. Therefore, I have no objection to this going into the law as such. There is one point that Sir Ewen Fergusson has made in his speech, and that is the change to the economic structure of Singapore overnight. I already made it clear that it was not overnight. I declared it in 1956 that we were considering it. It was thoroughly considered. Also there is no change in the economic structure by the mere changing in the law. A change to an economic structure can only come by factual changes in the economy. However, Sir, I am prepared to accept this amendment. Amendment agreed to. Question proposed, "That the new clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."

Sir, before this is passed, I would like to make this comment. While I understand perfectly what was the fear and anxiety behind Sir Ewen Ferguson's mind, I do not see how this adds to the elegance of the clause. It becomes an extremely unwieldy piece of legislation. Before it becomes enshrined in our law, the Attorney-General should prune it carefully. If he wants to give effect to the intention in this phrase, it should at least be put elegantly and succinctly.

I think the hon. Member late. We have passed that. We are now on the Question, "That the new clause, as amended, be to the Bill."

Question put, and agreed to. New clause, as amended, added to the Bill. Clauses 4 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause (after clause 1)- 'Amendment The long title of the Customs Ordinance is hereby amended of long by inserting immediately after the word "gas" appearing at title. the end thereof the words "and to impose protective duties on manufactured goods".'.-[Mr J. M. Jumabhoy.] Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir, I move, "That the new clause be read a Second time." Sir, this amendment is to make it clear that the law henceforth will not be a law for the purpose of raising revenue only, but a law that could be used for protecting industries too.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Consequential amendments will be made to the numbers of the clauses in the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.40 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Government's attention has been drawn to the inadequacy of section 9 of the Registration of United Kingdom Patents Ordinance, (Chapter 181 of the Revised Edition), as this section does not afford protection to patentees and others in the local Register of Patents between the date of filing of the provisional application in the United Kingdom and the filing of the complete specification. Under the United Kingdom Patents Act, 1907-1946, all patents based on non-convention applications were dated as at the date of the application in the United Kingdom. Under the United Kingdom Patents Act, 1949, however, patents are dated as at the date of filing the complete specification and some considerable time may elapse between the provisional application and the date of filing the complete specification. Therefore, if the patentee or others commenced the manufacture or sale of the invention in Singapore between the date of filing of the provisional application in the United Kingdom and the date of the filing of the complete specification, the validity of the certificate of registration issued locally might be assailable and the registration might even be invalidated. It is considered desirable, therefore, to give to the grantee of the United Kingdom patent or to others who commence the manufacture or sale of the invention in Singapore between the date of the filing of the provisional application in the United Kingdom and the date of the filing of the complete specification adequate protection when an application is subsequently made for the registration of the United Kingdom patent locally. Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to give effect to this intention. Clause 3 of the Bill, which replaces Section 11 of the Ordinance, makes it necessary for particulars of the title of the licensee of a patent to be entered in the Register of Patents and, unless such particulars have been registered, it shall not be admitted in evidence unless the court otherwise directs. This clause is designed to bring our law into line with the corresponding provisions of the law in the United Kingdom. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the BilI.-[Mr J. M. Jumabhoy]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.45 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." There is evidence, Sir, that during recent years an increasing number of private nursing homes, maternity homes and private hospitals are being set up. It is necessary to promote legislation for the registration, control and supervision of institutions used for the reception of the sick and convalescent, and of premises used for the reception of pregnant women or women immediately after child birth, to ensure that these institutions subscribe to standards acceptable and carry on under sanitary conditions. This Bill follows similar provisions in other countries, particularly the Public Health Act of 1936, and also takes cognizance of provisions under existing Ordinances, namely the Local Government Ordinance, the Singapore Industrial Promotion Board Ordinance, and the Clerks Employment Ordinance. The Bill has been considered by the Medical Advisory Council and agreed to by the Local Government authorities. It will be observed, from the definition of Local Authority in clause 2, that the Bill is intended to cover the Southern Islands as well. In Clause 3, the so-called death houses are exempted from the provisions of this Bill. These houses will continue to be licensed under by-laws made under the Municipal Ordinance or the Local Government Ordinance. Clause 11 provides that the existing maternity homes and nursing homes, provided they apply within two years of the coming into operation of this Ordinance, shall be registered unconditionally. The effect of the provisions of the Bill are detailed in the explanatory statement. I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat them. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 11.47 a.m.

Sir, in clause 3, the main purpose of this legislation is to ensure that a certain efficient standard is reached and maintained for the care and treatment of the sick.

Order. If the hon. Member is confining his comments to clause 3, perhaps the appropriate time would be in Committee. But if he is dealing with the general principles of the Bill, then he can speak now. I do not know what the hon. Member wishes to speak on. If he wishes to speak, as I say, on the general principles of the Bill, he can do so now. But if he wishes to speak on details of the Bill, such as clause 3, then there will be an opportunity in Committee.

I will speak in Committee, Sir. 11.48 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish the Minister will kindly make clear just one point. Why exclude the dying houses in Sago Lane and-

Order. I think the remarks I made just a little while ago, in connection with the Member for Farrer Park's attempt to speak, also apply to the hon. Member. If the hon. Member is confining his remarks to clause 3, which deals with "dying" houses or dying persons, then I think the proper time will be in Committee. There will be ample opportunity for him to speak on this in Committee. If the hon. Member is speaking on the general principles, that is, the principle of registration of persons carrying on nursing and maternity homes, and for purposes connected therewith, then he can do so now. But if it is on details, the hon. Member will have an opportunity in Committee.

Sir, I intend to speak on general principles. If the Hon. Minister can satisfy me on the points I raise, I will support the Bill in principle. In my opinion, the Bill should have been introduced much earlier. The tremendous increase in population, the housing shortage and the inadequate health facilities provided by the Government have encouraged private institutions to carry on for such purposes. Why allow private enterprise to get into such important institutions? Legislation to protect public interest is vitally important. Therefore, I heartily support this Bill in principle.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr A. J. Braga]. Bill considered in Committee. 11.49 a.m. Clause 1-

There will be an alteration "1958" will now read "1959". Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the bill. Clause 2-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 2, line 4, after "suffering", to insert "or convalescing". It was represented to me, after publication of the Bill, that there existed some doubt as to whether the Bill was intended to cover convalescent homes as well. As stated in the explanatory statement, it is the intention that convalescent homes are also covered. But to avoid any doubt on the matter, I move that clause 2 be amended by inserting the words "or convalescing" after the word "suffering". I beg to move. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3- Question proposed, "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

The main purpose of this legislation is to ensure that a certain efficient standard is reached in regard to the maintenance of treatment of sick and pregnant women. Why then should an exemption be granted under clause 3 in regard to the place used for the reception of the sick and the dying, licensed under the by-laws of the Local Government Ordinance, 1957? Sir, according to the Municipal Ordinance - I quote the Sick House by-laws: "Clause 12 No sick receiving house shall be licensed as such unless there is a Visiting Medical Practitioner attached to the Staff. The Medical Practitioner shall visit at least once a day. Clause 13 In addition to the caretaker, the sick receiving house shall have such nursing staff as shall be required by the Health Officer, and stated on the licence." Sir, when you have these conditions, naturally these houses come up to the level of ordinary hospitals and clinics. But there is nobody to inspect these sick houses to see whether they really engage nurses, midwives, or whether any medical practitioner really visits the place. According to the Ordinance, they must visit the place, but nobody seems to care whether anyone really visits the place. What I want to know is why the Government should spend such a lot of money on various medical institutions and leave such a place as a sick house as a blot on the dignity and health services of Singapore. Could we not have one or two wards from any other hospital attached, for the care of the sick and dying? Sir, I have heard that we had about 30 or 33 years ago two wards attached to the Tan Tock Seng Hospital for the care of the sick and dying. Now there is no more place like that, except that certain people, being given licences for this purpose, are, in fact, running on a commercial basis. According to the Municipal Ordinance, they must have a licence, but they are not under control by the Government. The City Council seems not worried at all as to what is happening in these sick and death houses. In fact, nobody seems to worry over that. Could we not do something at least for these unfortunate people? Government can give them some other place to build a building for the care of the sick and dying. When people are sick and are really dying, that is the time they need care and comfort more than the ordinary sick people. How does a sick man, who knows he cannot be cured, feel being dumped in a place where no attention is being given, either by the City Council or the Government? I would suggest - and this is not an amendment - that the Government should at least look into this matter and see that some free land outside the town area be given to those people who manage these sick houses to put up a building which, although it may not be up to medical standards, could at least, to a certain extent, preserve the dignity of our City, and at the same time, give some comfort to the sick and dying.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng? I understand the hon. Member wished to speak.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want the Hon. Minister to explain and I will see if I can accept it. I reserve my speech.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason for excluding death houses is specifically to allow the City Council, which has for many years been doing it, to continue to grant licences for such premises at its own discretion, since it has its own by-laws under the Ordinance. The City Council will be in a position to assess the need for continuing the death houses or to do away with them and licensing them entirely under the Ordinance. The question of visiting the place is purely within the responsibility of the City Council. If I find that the City Council is not undertaking its work, I will, of course, consider the question.

Sir, regarding the death houses, I wish to add to the objections raised by the hon. Member for Farrer Park. The death houses are now becoming an eye-sore in the eyes of Singapore. It may be a fascinating scene for the tourists, but I would emphasise that it is an eye-sore to the residents who stay near these death houses. The Minister for Health said that these houses have been controlled by the City Council for years, but he should weigh the fact that the population of Singapore, particularly in the so-called Chinatown area, has tripled since the years he referred to. A few death houses are a few death houses. How much profit the proprietors of these houses make I do not know, but at least the facilities could be improved now that these places are visited by tourists. If I am not mistaken, a few days ago the local Press announced that pictures of these death houses will appear on T.V. in America, as they are a centre of attraction for tourists. 12.00 noon. Therefore I support the suggestion of the Member for Farrer Park that it is time for Government to take a close look to see whether there is any need for any more death houses. You can imagine ten persons living in a small room in the congested area of Chinatown. Then suddenly one of them gets seriously ill and the doctor says that the patient has no chance to recover. What happens if the patient has no money and where will he be put? I wish the Minister for Health will consider this problem seriously and find a solution. Do not leave this so-called baby in the hands of the City Council.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the Member for Changi and I can assure him that all consideration will be given to the points that he has raised. But on the question of doing away with the death houses or their improvement, this is a matter, of course, for the City Council at the moment. On the question of improvements, I am not aware that the City Council is not doing its duty. With regard to the question of the death houses being the target for television and so forth, I am sure that this matter will be considered by the Minister responsible for the granting of facilities to tourists.

Is it not proper for the Minister to write a letter to the City Council?

Legislation is not done by letters.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4-

Mr Speaker, Sir, on further consideration of representations made to me by certain medical practitioners, age should not be the major consideration in determining whether a person is fit or otherwise to carry on or to be employed at a Home, and I consider that infirmity more than age will affect a person's fitness. I accordingly move, In page 3, line 5, to leave out "age" and insert "infirmity". Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5- Question proposed, "That clause 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say something on clause 4.

I am afraid that the hon. Member is too late. We are on clause 5 now.

Can I get some clarification on clause 4 from the Minister?

It has been passed. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to set down a question.

Yes.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 6 to 15 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

I think this is an appropriate time to suspend. I suspend this Assembly. I will take the Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.10 p.m. until 2.30 p.m Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Common Law principle that a person, who has bound himself by a contract to do something, cannot escape liability for damages even though the contract becomes impossible for him to perform has in days gone by led to hardships and even in some cases to absurdities. The doctrine that on frustration of a contract, by impossibility of performance, the loss lies where it falls, is misleading and often unjust. It is wrong to have a position where no adjustment can be made after the moment of frustration of a contract. In equity each particular case should be dealt with on its own merits and facts, and that is what this Bill seeks to establish for all contracts except those special types mentioned in subsection (5) of clause 3. For strictly mercantile contracts, the principles of this Bill already apply by reason of section 5 of the Civil Law Ordinance which imports the English Law for mercantile and similar purposes into Singapore, and so gives effect to the Frustrated Contracts Act of 1943 of the United Kingdom on which this Bill is based. This Bill will give general application to the modern principles of the United Kingdom, 1943, Act, which the Federation of Malaya has already adopted, and will enable the Courts to make adjustments between parties to a contract that can no longer be continued. In some respects it will re-establish a principle of ancient Roman Law in which a doctrine of restitution found favour. Clause 2 of the Bill provides in substance that all sums paid before the frustrating event shall be recoverable or, if not paid shall cease to be payable. But this general right may be qualified in the discretion of the Court if the party to whom the money is payable, or has been paid, has himself incurred expenses in the performance of the contract. If he has received payment, he may be allowed to retain the whole or part of what he has received; if he has received nothing he may be allowed to recover the whole or part of any expenses to which he is being put. Provision for the adjustment of benefits, expenses, and cost of work done, is made in subsection (3) of clause 2, but excluding contracts of insurance. The further provisions in clause 2 provide in subsection (4) that in assessing expenses the Court may have regard to overhead charges and cost of work, but subsection (5) expressly excludes money paid for insurance - that is not to be included in the computation or assessment or reassessment of values. Clause 3 starts by providing that the Bill, when enacted, will apply to contracts, the time of discharge of which is on or after the first of January this year. It goes on to provide that the Bill binds the Crown, and allows a freedom to contract-out. This is desirable because if in a particular contract special provision is made for the event of frustration then that special provision made in the contract should supervene, and the provisions of this Bill will be unnecessary. Certain types of contract are expressly excluded, notably charter-parties and insurance and contracts to which a section of the Sale of Goods Act applies. Those Sale of Goods contracts which are excluded are agreements for the sale of specific goods where the goods perish without any fault on the part of either the seller or the buyer. Insurance is expressly excluded, partly because, by the very nature of the contract, it is not right that there should be any adjustment if the event insured against does in fact happen. If a person insures against sickness, say, on the 1st January, and if on the 1st February of that same year falls sick, or dies, it would not be right, having regard to the risk run by the insurance company, to let him receive back 11/12ths of the premium that he paid. The Bill which was published on 12th December has not, so far as I know, been adversely criticised by anyone. It has the support of the Bar Committee and of the Trade Advisory Council, and I have no hesitation in commending it to this House. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Mr Shanks]. Bill considered in Committee.

2.40 p.m. Clause 1-

There is a note of an alteration, In page 1, line 5, to leave out "1958" and insert "1959". That will be done. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.43 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the purpose of the proposed amendment to the Ordinance is, as pointed out in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill, to enable the accounts of the War Damage Commission, which have been kept on a Pan-Malayan basis, to be audited as before by the Federation Auditor-General. The former Director of Audit, Malaya, used to have jurisdiction over the Federation of Malaya and Singapore. Following independence in the Federation of Malaya, it was no longer possible for him to continue on this basis. His post has been renamed Auditor-General, Federation of Malaya, and the former Singapore Deputy Director of Audit has now been renamed Director of Audit, Singapore. As the War Damage Commission accounts are kept on a Pan-Malayan basis, the audit will continue to be carried out by the Department of the Federation Auditor-General at Kuala Lumpur as before. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Oon Khye Kiang]. Bill considered in Committee. 2.44 p.m. Clause 1-

There is a note of an alteration, In page 1, line 5, to leave out "1958" and insert "1959". That will be done. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to proceed with this Bill. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this is a short Bill, and its purpose is to give effect to the understanding reached during the Constitutional Conference in the United Kingdom last year on the future status of the United Kingdom Services' lands in Singapore. It was then agreed that the United Kingdom Services should retain the land they occupied for defence purposes, and that there should be established by legislation a Services' Lands Board and that the titles for land paid for by or on behalf of the Services should be vested in this Board. The Board will also maintain a register of lands made available by the Singapore Government, and any such lands will revert to the Singapore Government on becoming surplus to Service requirements. The Board would also have the right to acquire further land in accordance with agreed constitutional process, or to dispose of surplus land under title on condition that such land should be offered to the Singapore Government in the first instance. Agreement was also reached regarding the assets created by the Services on land owned by the Singapore Government but made available to the Services for defence purposes and which subsequently became surplus. This Bill, Sir, therefore, consequently creates a Board which will administer, within the terms of the Agreement reached in London, all the lands used by the Services in Singapore. The individual clauses of the Bill are straightforward, and I do not think they call for any particular comment. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.48 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to have some information on this Bill. Would it be possible for the Hon. the Chief Secretary to inform the House of the area of land at present occupied and held by the Services? How much is being used by them? Is there any surplus? The second piece of information I would like to seek, Sir, is whether the land which is now occupied by the Services has been paid for by the United Kingdom Government. Has it been lent or has it been given for free use by the Colony of Singapore? I wish to have some information on this. The third point is this. If the land has been paid for by the United Kingdom Government, then it will be a Board constituted by them, because the land does not belong to us. If the land belongs to us, then the Singapore Government has the right to form its own Board. I am not able to understand myself. May I make my question clearer? If the land which is now occupied by the Services has been paid for by the United Kingdom, then the land belongs to the United Kingdom Government. If that is so, the Board will be entirely composed of members of the Services. I want some information, as I do not know anything about it. Mr David rose-

Mr David, in reply?

Sir, as to the factual information for which the hon. Member for Telok Ayer has asked, I am afraid I have not the details at my disposal now. A review is being made of all the lands now occupied by the Services with a view to implementing the terms of the Agreement which I outlined in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. There is a certain amount of land occupied by the Services and paid for by the United Kingdom Government. That land falls into two categories: land which has been purchased by private treaty from former owners. That land at present is held under title in the name of the Chief Secretary Incorporated, because the United Kingdom Services had no entity in Singapore capable of holding land. The bulk of the land, however, occupied by the Defence Services in Singapore and which was paid for by the U.K. Government was acquired under the Land Acquisition Ordinance at the expense of the U.K. Government. The land so acquired will have become Crown land, and therefore, there is no title at present in issue for that land. But it is proposed that titles should be issued for that land when the review to which I have referred has been completed.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr David]. Bill considered in Committee.

2.55 p.m. Clause 1-

There is an alteration, In page 1, line 5, to leave out "1958" and insert "1959". That will be done. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.57 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's recommendation that this Bill, which was read the First time on the 12th of December last, be proceeded with. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to improve the bankruptcy law which largely follows an English Act of 1883. Since 1888, when the present Bankruptcy Ordinance came into force, amendments have been made on several occasions, but although based on the law of England, we have not kept pace with certain important changes made in England by the Acts of 1914 and 1926. These are the Acts referred to in the Comparative Table printed at the end of this Bill. There are also certain anomalies which it would be as well to remove and this Bill seeks to bring the law up to date, and to tighten up the penal provisions of the Ordinance with a view to deterring persons minded to defraud their creditors. Although bankruptcy is a technical and complicated branch of the law, the general principle is well known. It is to keep a fair and even balance between a debtor who cannot pay his debts and his creditors, and between the creditors themselves. At present, under the Bankruptcy Ordinance, a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy if execution has been levied by seizure of his property where a judgment, including costs, is for an amount exceeding $500. But there is a difficulty in that a creditor cannot present a petition unless his debt amounts to $500. This anomaly will be removed by the first part of clause 2 of this Bill. The other alterations in clause 2 are designed to equate the effects of final orders and final judgments. It is a technical difference which at present can only be overcome by costly proceedings. The distinction was removed in the English law some considerable time ago, and it is an anachronistic anomaly that ought to be removed here. The next clause, clause 3, Sir, merely corrects an error in the present law. There is no Assistant Registrar. Clause 4 will give the Registrar jurisdiction to conduct routine examinations without the necessity of such examinations having to be conducted by a judge. A similar amendment was made in 1955 to another section of the Ordinance which gave the Registrar jurisdiction to take the public examination of a debtor, but there will here, as there is in the section 17 to which I referred, be power for an examination to be adjourned by the Registrar for consideration by a judge. Clause 5 deals with priority debts and the effect of this will be to add to rates, income tax and wages, which are now given preference, amounts due to the Central Provident Fund, if those amounts have become payable within 12 months of the receiving order. The next clause reduces the period of relation back of the Official Assignee's title to a bankrupt's property. It is not uncommon for debtors, on the eve of their bankruptcy, to attempt to defraud their creditors by transferring their property to others. This cannot be allowed and so there is provision in the law for the Official Assignee's title to relate back to a period prior to the actual operation of ordinary bankruptcy proceedings. It has been found in practice that 12 months is too long and sometimes inequitable, and this clause proposes that it should be changed to six months next preceding the date of the presentation of the bankruptcy petition. The amendment that will be made by clause 7 will enable the Official Assignee to recover assets where there has been an improper preference of a surety or guarantor. This is in effect related to the previous amendment that I have referred to, where it is sometimes possible for a bankrupt to give a wrong preference to persons by judicious disposing of his property immediately before he goes bankrupt. The next clause merely sets out what is the existing practice. It will formally relieve the Official Assignee from personal liability for costs and expenses in respect of work he does in the discharge of his official duties. Clause 9, which is the next part of the Bill, does a variety of things relating to the penal provisions of the Bankruptcy Ordinance, and is an endeavour to bring them up to date. There is a figure of $25 mentioned in section 110 of the present Bankruptcy Ordinance which limits offences by debtors. It is at the present time no offence to conceal or remove property to the value of only $25. That is a provision which has existed since 1888, and it is considered high time that the limit be increased from $25 to $100. True there is an offence, morally, however small the amount involved, but it is not practicable for the Official Assignee to concern himself with minor evasions by concealment or removal where the property is of very small value, and $100 is considered to be a reasonable amount at which to draw the line. It has been found in practice that sometimes debtors can avoid penal provisions under this particular section by delaying their presentation of petitions for four months, which is the period at present specified in this section. It is proposed that this should be enlarged to 12 months and the deletion of the expression "or the service of a debtor's summons upon him" mentioned in paragraph 4 of this clause will prevent the enlarging of the period by the debtor making use of the inevitable delay in the obtaining and issue of a judgment debtor's summons. The eighth paragraph of this clause substitutes a new paragraph for an existing one -

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Shanks]. Bill considered in Committee.

3.15p.m. Clause 1-

There is a note of an alteration. In page 1, line 5, to leave out "1958" and insert "1959". That will be done. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 12 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

3.17 p.m.

Sir, may I move a business motion?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the proceedings on item 8 on the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7. That is to say, the debate on item 8 shall continue beyond 4 p.m., if necessary.

I second it. Question proposed.

Sir, what happens to the remaining items on the Order Paper? Are they also to be exempted?

Perhaps the Chief Minister would like to clarify that matter?

Sir, may I explain that the exemption asked for is in regard to item 8 only, and all remaining items on the Order Paper will have to be considered at next Monday's sitting?

Thank you.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on item 8 on the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7.

Sir, I beg to move, That at its rising today, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Monday, 26th January, 1959.

If the Assembly is to sit again on Monday, which is an ordinary sitting day, then there is no necessity for the Chief Minister to move that the Assembly do stand adjourned to Monday.

Is notice not needed for Monday?

I thought I made myself clear. The ordinary sitting days are Mondays to Thursdays, and if there is an adjournment simpliciter today, which is a Thursday, the adjournment will automatically be to Monday, the next sitting day. If the intention is to adjourn to tomorrow, then, of course, there has to be a separate motion.

Sir, it was in my mind that the next sitting day should be on Monday.

In that case, there is no necessity for a special motion.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.21 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's consent to proceed with this Bill and I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of the Bill, Sir, cannot be put in more excellent words than in the statement I made to this House on 10th September, 1958. I shall read out those portions in the statement which relate to the introduction of this Bill. It is from Hansard of 10th September, 1958, columns 689 and 690: "Government realises that the working man and woman in Singapore has up to now had very little opportunity or incentive to actively participate in the ownership of industries and to benefit therefrom. Government therefore feels that it is not only necessary but also the duty of an elected Socialist Government to actively assist the people in owning and opening some industries which are profitable because they produce goods needed by the vast majority of the population. Such ownership should not be by the State with public funds but rather directly by the people on an individual basis so that every individual shareholder benefits directly from the profits." It goes on: "In order to organize the working man and woman for the new role of industrial ownership, a People's Investment Corporation will be set up with shares at $10 each to enable every working man and woman to participate by owning at least one $10 share. In order that the corporation is really an organization of the people and is not monopolised by a few big shareholders, no person shall be allowed to hold more than 50 shares." This, in short, was the purpose of the introduction of this Bill at the last sitting. The Bill, as it stands, provides for an authorised capital of $10 million divided into one million ordinary shares of $10 each. The holding of the shares is limited to not more than 50 shares to be held by one individual and, in order that a check is kept that no person holds more than 50 shares under fictitious names, the identity card numbers are required to be stated on the applications, and they will be shown on the register and share certificates. Subject to this restriction, the shares shall be transferable in the market. In case of a loss to the people who are going to invest in this Corporation and who would presumably come from the middle class and lower class earning group - because this Corporation is intended to give them an opportunity to invest money in an industrial enterprise which is considered profitable by the Government - all shares shall be guaranteed by Government at par. The issue of shares shall be at the discretion of the Board of Directors in amounts which are considered to be necessary but they are not to exceed the authorised capital. That means that the Directors can float shares to the number that they think is desirable for any particular venture, but the total of such floatation at different times should not exceed $10 million, and all issues shall rank equally with one another so that there will be no preferential treatment of one issue over a later or an earlier issue. There is a limitation in the Bill placed on the investment of the funds of this Corporation, and the limitation is that the Corporation shall invest its funds in industrial ventures only on the written invitation of the Industrial Promotion Board. Now this safeguard has been put in because it is possible that the Directors might venture to invest in fields which might not prove to be profitable because there has not been sufficient investigation beforehand. Consequently, this is to safeguard the poor man who is likely to own shares in this Corporation. Of course, in case where the Corporation holds funds surplus to its requirements for investment in industrial purposes, the Directors will have power to invest such surplus funds in gilt-edged securities. The word "gilt-edged" is not specified as such. The words used in the Bill are "trustee securities or placed on deposit in banks". Therefore, there need not be any idle capital lying with the Corporation which may not earn any income but, of course, the income from such investment would be limited to the rate obtained for such type of investment. Now, as regards the control of this Corporation, it is proposed that the Chairman shall be nominated by the Minister, that the Minister shall appoint three Directors for varying periods, and that the Chairman and these three Directors shall form the initial Board of Directors. They shall have powers to carry out all deeds and acts pertaining to the good conduct of the Corporation and its investments. But the Corporation shall hold a general meeting within one year of its incorporation, unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Minister that, due to unforeseen circumstances, an extension is necessary, in which case the Minister can extend the period by a further year. At this first annual general meeting, the shareholders shall elect three Directors, and after such elections, the Board of Directors shall be composed of the Chairman, three appointed Directors and three elected Directors. The Corporation will also be empowered to nominate such number of its Directors as is necessary on the Board of other companies in which it is participating with capital, but, of course, the Chairman shall always be a nominee on such Boards of participating companies. In order that the control in the general meeting does not go to persons who are bent on trying to get control in their hands, a further stipulation limits the number of proxies that any shareholder may hold, and that limit is placed at 20 so that manipulation by shareholders interested in gaining control cannot conic about because no person can represent more than 20 as proxy. Sir, this is the first step, and I think a unique step, to bring the people of Singapore into partnership in industrial expansion. But, as has been announced in my statement, as a first stage the Government proposes that this Corporation should participate only in the cigarette industry and the matches industry, because, on investigation, I am satisfied and so is the Manager of the Industrial Promotion Board -

On a point of information, Sir.

If the Minister will give way.

Certainly, Sir. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy resumed his seat.

Assuming the Bill is passed today, could the Minister tell us how long he expects it to be before this Corporation begins to participate in these industries?

Sir, the length of time before this Corporation starts participating depends, first, on the amount of support the Corporation gets from the people of Singapore; secondly, it depends on the negotiations that have to be finalised with outside manufacturers, if they wish to come in, before a cigarette venture is started. Therefore, it is difficult for me at this stage to give any definite indication of the period of time that will be required.

On a further point of information, Sir.

Will the Minister give way?

I think, Sir, the Member can speak when I have finished, and I will reply to him then. As I was saying - before the hon. Member disturbed my trend of thought - this is the first step in Singapore where the people are asked to participate in Singapore's industrial expansion and in ventures which are considered to be safe investments and profitable. Sir, many Socialist Parties and individuals profess a desire to bring about Socialist policies and so on. This is not "Socialist" in the sense that the Government controls a particular industry. When they say a socialised industry, they mean normally a nationalised industry - an industry that is owned or run by the Government. This is a genuine effort to get the people of Singapore, the common man or woman in the street, to participate in profitable ventures. It can be termed. Sir, a democratised socialist venture. I am not good at coining such words - the Member for Tanjong Pagar is, and I am sure the Minister for Communications and Works is equal to him in that respect. But I, Sir, am not a politician by-

Nature!

Not by nature, but by inclination; neither am I a politician by profession. Therefore, I confess I am not up to arguing with the Member for Tanjong Pagar about terms of that sort. However, when this Corporation is initiated, I hope, and I am almost sure, that the people of Singapore will meet it with the confidence that it deserves. Sir,I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Minister for Commerce and Industry has said, it is a unique step, and the Government, after 3½ years in office, is making a genuine effort to help the working man and working woman in Singapore. But what I cannot understand is why this Bill, if it is so good, was not introduced much earlier when the Labour Front Coalition Government came into power? Sir, we know the tragic events during the last 3½ years which have proved to the people of Singapore that the Labour Front Coalition Government is not in a position to run the affairs of the country efficiently. This Bill is very beautifully put up and introduced by the Minister for Commerce and Industry. I am referring to clause 5 (2) at page 2 which says : - "All shares of the Corporation are hereby guaranteed at par by the Government." The Minister has just informed the House that this Bill is helping the working man and working woman. Such people are going to invest their money earned through sweat. They are going to invest in, say, 50 shares at $10 each in this Corporation. Will Government guarantee a return of profit? If the Minister is so sure of making money out of this Corporation, it may as well guarantee a profit. If a person puts money in the bank, Sir, he can at least get 4 per cent interest. Today, the people may have money to invest in the Corporation, but tomorrow they may need the money, in which case can Government accept the surrendering of the shares and pay back to the investor the money he has invested? Sir, I have no quarrel with Government's intention to help the working man and working woman. I am here to see that their interests are protected, and that their money is not lying idle in the Corporation. Do you know that, if you put in, say, $500 today and you withdraw it after 10 years, that $500 will be of no use? Sir, $1,000 was a very big sum prewar. Today, you insure a person's life for $1,000. After 10 or 15 years, when you get the money back from the insurance company, it is worth only $100. Sir, what I am very concerned with is this-if the Government is sincere in its effort to help the people, it must make it plain to them that their hard-earned money will be protected. Sir, this Bill is indeed a unique step. 3.39 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I were to run an essay competition on "How to interest the people of Singapore in industrialisation", I would award the Minister for Commerce and Industry the first prize. I think this is one of his bright ideas - it is worth a debate, certainly worth looking into, and most certainly will come to nothing. We spent some time, not long ago, in 1957, discussing the $1 million Singapore Industrial Promotion Board. It has come to nought. At that time we were told how the $1 million, by a series of geometrical progression, would lead to investments worth millions of dollars. It seems one lends $1 million; the part paid back is lent out again; it comes in one end and goes out the other end, so that although the capital investment is only $1 million, yet in effect the total stimulus given to industry would be worth many millions. I see from the Press that the Chairman of the Board, who was connected with the Manufacturers' Association, has relinquished his post. I have asked the Minister just now how long it was before he expected to do anything about this Bill, provided it is passed today and the Governor gives his assent at the earliest possible date. He knows, as well as we do, that at the outside his Government has got up to the 2nd July to do anything about it. Nobody is likely to get anything going within the time at his disposal. We are just arguing a purely hypothetical and academic Bill for the purpose of satisfying the ego of the Minister for Commerce and Industry. Sir, to argue on this purely academic Bill to its academic conclusions, may I ask him, before I proceed, just how he proposes to prevent a person from capturing control, beneficial control and not nominal control, of more than 50 shares? The Schedule says: "No person shall be permitted to hold more than fifty shares and no further shares shall be allotted or transferred to any person who already holds fifty shares in the Corporation." It does not say anywhere that no person shall pot hold 50 shares in trust for somebody else. Therefore I can well go and round up 5,000 people, and get each to hold 50 shares each in trust for me. There is no law against this and, therefore, if his Investment Corporation and his cigarette factory are a roaring success, far from the Minister making large numbers of people becoming small property-owning democratic supporters of the Singapore People's Alliance, he will be creating a situation in which a great number of speculators and racketeers will pounce on the shares they have captured the beneficial control of. However, be that as it may, in principle, I expect it is as good as any of the schemes which his Government has thought out. How do we get votes? By putting money in people's pockets! How do we put money in their pockets when they do not have confidence in us? Take public funds and guarantee that they would not lose the money. But then, as the Member for Tiong Bahru says, why not guarantee a profit too? I am quite sure the imaginative Minister for Commerce and Industry did not think this one out. Had he thought of it earlier-

I had!

He had indeed! Then he might very well have forestalled the question put to him by the Member for Tiong Bahru. But as a matter of practical politics, the Minister knows well that this is just another statute which will lie quietly on the Statute Book. He can do nothing about it, and if he does, he may come to grief! 3.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this House must indeed be very pleased to witness today two major Parties denounce Socialist economic policies. The P.A.P. yesterday said that as long as the economic situation of Indonesia and the Federation of Malaya remains unchanged, they are not supporting any major changes. And now the Minister for Commerce and Industry stands up to say that this project, which we are now debating, is not a Socialist measure. Talking about industrialisation, I wonder whether you have been disturbed sometimes by any foreign visitors. When the visitor pesters you to take him round Singapore, and you bring him up to Mount Faber, you will have a nice view of the whole of Singapore at your feet. And the most striking scene is the harbour - with so many ships - yet not even a smoking chimney which is indicative of an industrial city. This is the industrial effort which all politicians are shouting about highly! Now, Sir, at least the Minister for Commerce and Industry honestly tried to put up a scheme. I will agree with the criticism that the life of the present Government is too short to give effect to this scheme, but at least the Minister's purpose and determination is good and the scheme is worth considering. The leader of the P.A.P. should follow this example. Those who thought of this scheme are honest because they were elected on the socialist platform. They have promised to provide every opportunity for the people. So even in the last few hours which they have, they want to work out a scheme to provide an opportunity to the people to participate in a business venture. They are not like so many selfish socialist leaders who are extremists and only know how to strike and strike until all the factories are shut down. Then they will say that until we merge with the Federation of Malaya we cannot solve our problems. They only talk and talk, and come to this Assembly and blabber, blabber, blabber-

Order. I take it that the hon. Member did say "blabber" and not "blubber". I do think that "blabber" is not quite a parliamentary word to use in this Assembly. I ask him to withdraw the word "blabber".

Sir, I will obey your order. I beg to withdraw the word. Sir, in principle, this project has won my hearty support, and I assure you that the working class, the masses, will open their eyes and judge for themselves whether the Minister for Commerce and Industry is doing the right thing or the wrong thing, and whether he will succeed or not. Anyway, this scheme is an attempt to provide for more jobs, and what is more important, that the Minister has the courage to challenge the import or business houses which have long been monopolised by the Europeans. Sir, the task is big but the Minister has the courage to undertake this project. Sir, in the speech which the Minister for Commerce and Industry has just delivered, there are a few important points where I am sure he has failed to convince us. The first point is whether he can tell this House when this project can really be put into effect. Secondly, even if we start manufacturing our own cigarettes, will the Minister prohibit the import of any foreign-made cigarettes into Singapore? Thirdly, will this restriction affect one of our main sources of revenue? So I hope the Minister for Commerce and Industry can give us a detailed explanation of these three points. I also support the Member for Tiong Bahru when he says that Government has a duty to give assurances to the investor, especially as it is the Government itself which intends to invite the lower income group to be shareholders. I sincerely hope the Minister for Commerce and Industry will also give us a satisfactory reply to this point. Lastly, I wish the Minister can inform us whether, since he first brought out his idea about this scheme in this House, ally preparations have been made regarding the recruitment of workers, the purchase and installation of machinery, etc., because you must have a blue-print of your plan in your Ministry. It is high time for you to let us know in detail the type of preparatory work you have done.

Order. I do not think that I am in possession of the secrets of the Ministry. Perhaps the hon. Member has forgotten that he is addressing the Chair.

I beg your pardon, Sir. Another point - it looks as if it is too much for the Minister for Commerce and Industry to give any assurance - how much confidence has he, and what method does he intend to use to change the smoking habits of our people here? There is a piece of information supplied by the Hon. the Financial Secretary in answer to a question (No. 2) on the Order Paper of 21st January, 1959 - that is the average monthly releases, by grades of cigarettes from bond in 1958. There are so many different grades - Grades D, C, B, B1 and A - and I am sure all hon. Members will discover the differences in choice. Grade B is far bigger than all the other brands put together. This shows that the smokers in Singapore have their own choice. For example, Grade B is 165,712 pounds compared with Grade D which is only 76,190 pounds, and Grade A is 42,857 pounds. We come now to the prices. There are also great differences. Grade D, c.i.f. per 1,000 sticks is $7.50 and less than $10.50 compared with Grade B which, as I have just quoted, has a bigger sale and which is $13.50 and less than $15. Sir, all these differences show that there is a connection between the sale of cigarettes and the choice of the smokers. Therefore, what are the grounds for the Minister's confidence, and what are his methods for implementing this project, if he is so sure that the project will meet with success? 3.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is another Bill which-

We will have to foot!

as the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar has said, will remain on the Statute book and nothing more. It is a mere waste of time to speak on this. However, a warning is very necessary to the public. It is a stunt. Am I in order to say "stunt", Sir?

Order. Perhaps, as the hon. Member is rising on a point of order on himself, I had better rule that "stunt" is out of order. Please withdraw it.

Thank you for the guidance, Sir. I withdraw it. It is a political stuff which is not easily consumed by the public. At the outset, it has been said that the scheme is to help the poor man in getting into a venture or industry and making a profit out of it. In case of loss, this Government, or any future government, will guarantee to pay the money back. He can within three months get his money back. That is the safeguard. But as my friend and colleague on this side of the House, the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru, has said, if a poor man has saved his well-earned money by hard labour, he expects a return. But after years and years of investment, there may be no returns. In case of a loss in business, he gets back his capital; but where is his profit? You may put your money in a savings bank for so many years and you can expect to double it. You put in an insurance policy and you may get a return after some years. But in this scheme there is no such guarantee. On the other hand, Sir, even if this Bill is passed, I think there is no value whatsoever. Can a poor man put his trust in this Bill when it is brought out by the ex-members of the Labour Front? Now, they do not represent the workers. How can the workers trust these people by putting their good money into this venture? I cannot understand at all. They will have to wait till the next government comes in and find out what the policy of that government is before they will consider taking a lead and invest in this project, but not when the present people are in power. Sir, there are many industries. If you go through the share market reports you will see that the shares offered vary from 50 cents to any amount above that. You can buy them and make a profit. A small man can even buy $1 worth of shares or $100 worth of shares. There are some returns which we see every day in the open list of the share market reports. These investments are available and more profitable to them. Will they venture to go into something which is an unknown quality and with no return? Mention was made about cigarettes and matches. If the idea is to invest the small people's money in this way, the small men, instead of reaping a harvest from their investment, will have to buy their own cigarettes and matches at a higher price. In other words, they will not only put in their own money, but they will also have to pay a higher price for the same thing which they are getting in the open market at competitive prices. I do not think anyone has given thought to this. A reply will be very interesting. Then to make it competitive as far as selling is concerned, you will have to give them a preferential or tariff duty. The common men will be prevented or will not be able to afford and enjoy the various brands at their disposal. Of course, they will be at a higher price because of the present Government's taxation and duties. Moreover, the people will be handicapped because they are used to a particular thing and they cannot get it. They will then say, "Well, I have invested more than $10, but now I have to pay another $10 per month to buy my own cigarettes or matches. It is so very much more." It will be another burden to them. Sir, in the end, this Bill is nothing but a farce.

Sir, for $10, a working man can make an investment in a very successful industrial concern, at the present time. This scheme, I am sure, will be measured by the number of subscribers who are willing to put money in it. I am not certain whether the idea is that they put the money in first and then the investments are made afterwards, or the investments are going to be carefully worked out and then the members of the public will be asked to subscribe to something which might or might not be a success. But the Minister for Commerce and Industry has stated that he has complete confidence in the success of cigarette making and match making. It might well be better if the Government experimented with any project first - if it is really successful, then give the members of the public a chance to invest in something that is successful. One other point which I would like the Hon. Minister to answer. Will this corporation be subject to income tax like all other trading corporations? 4.04 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this People's Investment Corporation Bill appears to a man in business to have some catch somewhere. I really cannot understand how this thing can work. First of all, I refer to the explanatory statement. It says that there will be a contingent liability on Government funds in the case of total loss of capital up to the amount of shares issued but which cannot exceed $10 million. This, of course, refers to the Government's guarantee to redeem at par if there is a loss. But if it is a total loss, I can imagine that it will exceed $10 million because, according to the Bill, there is a Board of Directors, to be appointed which will necessarily involve administrative expenses - Director's fees from year to year. The eventual loss, if it is a total loss at all, must exceed $10 million; that is, if the shares are taken up to $10 million. Another point is that the posts of the Directors - there are six or seven to be appointed -seem to me to be sinecure, because the Directors are only there to be recommended by the Industrial Promotion Board what to invest. They themselves have no discretion to manage or to invest in any ventures which they might think fit. This $10 million is after all public money, which, in the event of failure of a venture will be lost. Another thing is that I have very grave doubts whether anybody will subscribe to the shares of this corporation. First, it is limited to 50 shares of $10 each, which is $500. No doubt, the intention of the Hon. Minister for Commerce and Industry is good and he probably has at the back of his mind the idea that these people are to be working men and women. But there is no provision here that if, for instance, Members of the Assembly were to be interested in the shares and they are not, in the sense as implied here, ordinary working men and women - they would be debarred from buying these shares. Imagine the ordinary working men and women who have saved $500 to invest. Surely with no assurance of profit they could be more well advised to invest in City Council loans which at the present market value yield a sure return of about six per cent a year, instead of venturing. It is not a venture, in the real sense of the word, but still it is in that they will have to put away the $500 maybe for a period of five or ten years without any profit or any dividend at all, although they may be assured that in the case of loss they can still get their $500 back. Again, there is one thing which is not very clear to me. That is, people who want to buy shares need only show their identity cards. Persons of 12 years old have identity cards, and presumably they will be allowed to buy shares. But when a transfer comes along, would they, being minors, be legally allowed to transfer those shares? It seems to me that, as I see it, there must be a catch somewhere. Otherwise, I do not see how this thing could succeed. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose-

Mr Jumabhoy, in reply?

Sir, it is often said that a little knowledge is dangerous. But today I discover that no knowledge aired in public is more dangerous. Sir, I am curious. I can understand the motive of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. He is really frightened of this. He knows - [Laughter.] What is the good of laughing aloud? He knows that if this venture were to be brought about successfully - he will, of course, see that it is not, I know that - then his voters will say, "Yes, the P.A.P. is good; but look at these chaps - Jumabhoy, Lim Yew Hock and company. They have also done something good for the people." He is afraid of that. I know that, Sir. He was speaking so surely and so fervently that this venture would come to nought. I wonder, Sir, what is going on behind the scenes. Before I made this statement on the 10th of September last, I had been negotiating with the British American Tobacco Company, who control about 80 per cent of the cigarette trade here, to manufacture here on this basis: 49-49-2. The effect would be that the people will not be forced to smoke other cigarettes. You will get your Players, Capstan and Double Ace. Only, instead of being made in England, they will be made here, and instead of the B.A.T. taking 100 per cent profit, they will only take 49 per cent and the people of Singapore will get 49 per cent. But now, Sir, I am not so sure, with the Member for Tanjong Pagar stating so surely that this will come to nought. Something is going on behind the scenes and the P.A.P. is capable of doing its utmost to destroy a political opponent. That I know. But the people will know that if this venture does not come about, there will be nothing better for the Member for Tanjong Pagar, and probably they will then be suspicious whether or not somebody has done something to bring this venture to nought in the interests of a political party, not caring for the interests of the people of Singapore. Negotiations are still going on with the B.A.T. but these could not be finalised because this Bill is not law yet. That might have taken the wind out of the sails of the Member for Tanjong Pagar. But I do not think so, Sir. He was well aware that these negotiations were going on. In fact, he saw the people concerned when they were here in September last. That is why I am suspicious that something behind the scenes must be going on. Sir, the Member for Tiong Bahru has said that the Government has been 3½ years in office and has done nothing. Sir, everything is not done the first day the Government takes office. Things have got to be worked out. If things are worked out and they take two or three years, we are too late. If things are done quickly, then they are thrown before the House without proper study. Either way it is the Government at fault.

This is the proper time to buy votes!

Sir, if I reply to that, I will have to give a lengthy newspaper quotation of what has happened-

Order. I am not quite certain what that remark was. If it is a point of order, I would like the Minister to raise it as a point of order; otherwise that remark must be struck off the record.

No, Sir, I do not want to raise it as a point of order. I know the Member does not mean anything bad. "The Government is paying money to buy votes" - he means that this is-

Order. Now that that expression has been disclosed, I would ask the hon. Member who used that expression to confirm that he did mention those words. If the answer is in the affirmative, he must withdraw that expression. Mr Goh.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I quite agree with the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who just now said that the Government has been here for more than 3½ years-

Order. Will the hon. Member please inform the House whether he alleged the Government was buying votes?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if you object, I withdraw the expression.

Thank you.

Sir, the point was raised by the Member for Tiong Bahru and one or two other hon. Members as to why the Government does not guarantee a return of profits. Government has guaranteed the money on the original shares and so nobody will lose his money.

Profits!

The Government does not guarantee profits.

Why?

It will be noticed that even if no investment is made in an industrial venture, the directors have the power to invest in trustee securities and therefore some income would be accruing to the shareholders. But if the Government gives guaranteed returns, then it does not become a business venture, but a gilt-edged security comparable to any debentures or any Government or City Council loans. That is not the intention of the Government. Government's intention is that the people of Singapore should come into a business venture where they cannot get a guaranteed return, but because the shareholders are going to be the poor people, Government says, "You shall not lose. We shall guarantee you against any loss." But that is as far as the Government can go. And since it is going to be a business venture, you take your chance; instead of the Government guaranteeing you five or six per cent, which is a meagre flea-bite in the light of today's earning capacity, you can get 40 or 50 per cent if the Corporation makes a profit. I have already mentioned about the Member for Tanjong Pagar being so sure that it will come to nothing. He said the Industrial Promotion Board can do nothing. That is not true. The Industrial Promotion Board has done some work. It has lent out some money. It is furnishing the Government with a lot of industrial technical information and also giving assistance to industries. But I am surprised why the hon. Member is so sure that this will come to nothing.

Judging from your past performance!

Judging from the Member's cleverness, Sir, in fighting political battles, I will not be surprised if his prediction comes true because of something going on behind the scenes. The moment I discover that, I am going to expose it. In fact, I have certain information, but I do not consider it fair to disclose it now because I am not really satisfied yet. I do not want to make use of the privilege of this House by levelling accusations against the hon. Member's Party. The hon. Member said this move was to bolster the ego of the Minister. Because of politics, any sincere attempt is always twisted. Politicians in the Opposition do not care whether a move is beneficial to the people. They only care that the move shall be frustrated for their own political manoeuvring. That is very bad and I am against that sort of thing. The Member for Changi raised sensible questions. I did not say it was not a socialist measure. I said it was a democratic socialist measure, not a socialist measure in the normal sense that the Government owns the enterprise. Then he asked me when it is expected to be brought about. I think I covered that point at the beginning when I said, in answer to a query by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, that that depended on the response of the people and on the outcome of negotiations now going on with the B.A.T. and also with other companies possibly. Then the hon. Member asked me whether the import of cigarettes would be prohibited. Sir, in my statement I have said that restrictions will be placed on the import of cigarettes when this project is brought to fruition. Restrictions could be in the form of either quantitative restrictions or by imposing a higher duty on imported cigarettes. A natural restriction would be brought about thereby. We do not contemplate a total prohibition in the initial stages at least, but it remains to be seen how the venture goes and whether there is too much of smuggling because of higher duties on imported brands. Smuggling could increase the quantity of imported cigarettes in which case prohibition would probably have to come in. Then the hon. Member goes on to ask me about the revenue angle. The Member for Tanjong Pagar was sure that there will be loss in revenue. The answers to questions supplied by the Hon. the Financial Secretary yesterday are pertinent. If you take one item, Player's Medium, according to his answer given orally yesterday, it beats all other brands in the same grade. It means that the release of Player's Medium is more than fifty per cent of Grade B cigarettes, which total 66,285,000 sticks a month. Sir, the release of Player's Medium is more than 33 million sticks a month. Therefore, if we take as an example, we will see that the duty element on 1,000 sticks is $19.44 and the retail price is $40. That means that the retail price is four cents a cigarette. The duty element is 1.944 cents, which means that it is less than two cents a cigarette, and therefore the cost of the actual cigarette minus the duty is just a little over two cents to the consumer. Now, that duty element is on imported cigarettes. The present duty on tobacco for manufacture is very low. I think it is $2.50 or something like that per lb. The duty element works out at half a cent for the locally manufactured cigarettes. Now it is very easy to put an excise duty on local manufacture to the same level of $19.44 per 1,000 sticks and that is roughly two cents a cigarette.

On a point of information, Sir.

If the Minister will give way. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy resumed his seat.

On a point of information. How many local manufacturers of cigarettes are there at the moment and how many of them would be put out of business as a result of this?

There are three local manufacturers. I do not contemplate that they will be put out of business because certain arrangements will be made with them. I have said so in my previous statement too. If only the hon. Member would care to look it up in the Hansard, it will be to his benefit. Now supposing you take the two cents original cost of a cigarette to the public without the duty element, the local cigarette would then sell at two cents plus half a cent duty - 2½ cents. The imported cigarette would sell at two cents plus two cents - four cents. If you keep it at the same price of four cents a cigarette to the public and, instead of import duty, you put an excise duty raising it from half a cent to two cents, your revenue is then guaranteed. You then raise your duty on imported cigarettes from two cents to four cents each - this is just a case in point - and your imported cigarettes will cost the consumer six cents each, your locally-made cigarettes will cost him four cents each, as the imported cigarettes are costing him now, and the duty element will be the same. Therefore, there can be no loss of revenue. It is simple, Sir, to work it out, but hon. Members are not inclined to apply their minds to it, because they are afraid and they want to oppose it for political reasons. Now we come to the Hon. the Financial Secretary's reply again, and it shows us that the cost of a cigarette retail, minus the duty element, to the public is two cents - the retail price of a cigarette is nearly two cents if you ignore the duty element. It is common knowledge, Sir - you ask any retailer about this as it is not a secret - that the retailer is getting eight per cent profit on his sales. When the retailer gets eight per cent, it is normal to expect the wholesaler to get a quarter of that - about two per cent. Let us be charitable and say that the wholesaler gets three per cent. That means 11 per cent in all out of that two cents on four cents - 11 per cent on the four cents is a safe basis - goes to the wholesaler and the retailer. Now, if you work out 11 per cent of four cents, you get .44 cent on your one cigarette. If you take that away from two cents, you still get about 1.6 cents, which is the price charged by the importing firm to the wholesaler. This is all worked out. I am not letting out any secrets and anybody possessing intelligence can work it out. Therefore, 1.6 cent is the price charged to the wholesaler by the importer. I have been to America and the Philippines and I have studied the costing of the cigarette industry thoroughly. You can buy American Virginia tobacco. We have got confirmed offers from the United States of Virginia tobacco which is used in all the English cigarettes. These tobacco cigarettes are called straight Virginias. You can buy it today ready cut for making into cigarettes with all the flavoring and so on. The maximum price you pay is U.S. $1 per lb., that is M$3 per lb. For 1 lb. of tobacco, you get 400 to 420 cigarettes. The tobacco in a cigarette therefore costs ¾ cent. But you never use all Virginia tobacco. You use 30 or 40 per cent Rhodesian tobacco, because Rhodesian tobacco has a better colour; the Virginia tobacco has a more pungent odour and therefore you blend it with Rhodesian tobacco. The cost of Rhodesian tobacco is half that of Virginia tobacco. If you use say, 40 per cent of Rhodesian tobacco, then your cost comes down by 20 per cent on your whole cigarette and that will cover the paper, the labour and so on. So, in effect, your cigarette should cost you well under one cent and therefore the profit factor in a cigarette is more than ½ cent per stick. I am well convinced that it comes to ½ cent per stick. I have worked it all out and the Manager of the Industrial Promotion Board, who is an experienced man, has also worked it out. I have checked it in Manila and have re-checked it in America. The profit element is a little over 4 cent per stick on the medium grade cigarettes, not on the very low grade cigarettes. Sir, the answer to yesterday's Oral Question 2 (a) is that one month's consumption is 152 million cigarettes which works out to 5 million sticks a day. Five million sticks a day at half a cent profit on each stick will give you a profit element of $25,000 a day. If you work it out further, it will give you $750,000 a month or $9 million a year. Am I a criminal, Sir, if I want the people of Singapore to share half of this $9 million profit a year? I am labelled by the P.A.P. as one who thinks of imaginative schemes. Let the people know, Sir, who is right. If there are no machinations going on, this scheme will come to fruition. If machinations are going on, if threats are held out to the foreign investor that, "if the Government changes, we will see you if you come to agreement with this Government", or if the olive branch is held out, "We will give you better terms than the Lim Yew Hock Government gives you", then the people will know - and one day I am going to publicise what terms we are offering in case another Government tries to give better terms - which government was beneficial to the people or which Government sold them out. Anyhow, all that I am trying to do is to give the people a half share-

May I ask the Minister a question on a point of clarification, Sir?

If the Minister will not mind giving way.

Sir, I do.

Afraid?

I am not afraid, Sir, I have had enough from the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Sir, if only the Member for Tanjong Pagar had less of the ego in him and gave credit to others also for having some brains - which he does not do - he would not have made me reveal all these figures. He has shown his ignorance of the issue. Mr William Tan rose -

On a point of information?

Yes, Sir. As regards the figures put forward by the Minister for Commerce and Industry, I would like to know whether the quantity of cigarettes smoked by the public will increase or reduce.

Sir, that is a hypothetical question. The quantity smoked is 5 million cigarettes a day. If you give them the same brands made in Singapore with the same formula and with the same Virginia and Rhodesian tobacco mixed, I do not see why there should be a switch to other brands. The switch can only come if, because of machinations, foreign firms refuse to participate. We will then be forced to make our own cigarettes. Even then, Sir, I have had the assurance of dealers of an adequate supply of tobacco. Believe me, Sir, a cigarette is not a difficult thing to manufacture. In Thailand they are doing it, and their quality is acclaimed to be as good as that of any imported cigarettes. Though the Member for Tanjong Pagar may laugh, Sir, he knows in his heart that it is true, that it is not something that is so difficult that you cannot make it here. You can make cigarettes of an equivalent quality here.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

If the Minister will give way.

No, Sir, Now, I think that has answered the question of Sir Ewen Fergusson why the Government should not start it first. My intention is that the public should participate in it. I have nothing further to add to what I have said. I think I have clarified the position enough and the public will not be under the impression that this is an attempt at a political stunt, as put by somebody. It is not, Sir, It is a genuine attempt to give them a share in this venture with millions of dollars' profit accruing to outsiders. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy resumed his seat.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

The Minister has sat down!

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr J.M Jumabhoy] Bill considered in Committee.

4.32 p.m. Clause 1-

There is a note of an alteration, In page 1, line 5, to leave out "1958" and insert "1959". That will be done. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3-

I am going very slowly through this Bill because I do not think it will be beyond hon. Members, if they wish to, to make further comments on the clauses as are appropriate. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4- Question proposed, "That clause 4 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, will the Corporation be exempted from income tax or will it pay taxes like any other Corporation?

Sir, the Corporation will pay tax just like any other public body, but the joint enterprise or the cigarette venture or whatever venture it is, could apply for pioneer status under the Pioneer Industry legislation, just as any other private company could. Government's intention is, before any floatation is made, to put up a prospectus to show them what the profits are on that particular venture.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the stand part of the Bill. Clause 6- Question proposed, "That clause 6 stand part of the Bill."

If any hon. Member has any comments to make on the Schedules, this is his opportunity to do so.

Sir, since you have indicated that this is an appropriate time to consider the Schedule, I would like to draw the House's attention to clause 1 (1) of the Schedule: "No person shall be permitted to hold more than fifty shares and no further share shall be allotted or transferred to any person who already holds fifty shares in the Corporation." Sir, I am not as good as the Hon. Minister for adding and subtracting but it seems to me that if each person took up $500 worth of shares, there will not be more than 20,000 investors. In any case, according to the Property Survey Report, there are no 20,000 people with $500 to invest. But - and this is just by way of an opening remark to preface my point - if, in fact, the Minister's intention is not to help the middle class to become richer, but to help the worker to become petty bourgeoisie, then surely he does not want to extend the investment to the amount of 50 shares? He should limit it to a figure much lower than that. Therefore I would like to ask him now to consider whether he would like to reduce the figure - if it is meant for the workers, and not for the middle class - to reduce it to 10 shares, because the average worker has not got $100 to invest. That is the first point. I will therefore, at an appropriate time, Sir, move an amendment to reduce from 50 to 10. Secondly, the Minister has not answered my point-although I see he was in consultation with his legal adviser. There is no proviso anywhere in the Schedule to prevent the beneficial holding of more than 50 shares. And I think he knows the answer. He is such a bright man that when it comes to a sticky question, he prefers not to answer it: that is why he did not want me to ask questions. The point is: there is nothing in the Schedule to prevent one man beneficially holding $10 million worth of shares. The Schedule says: "No person shall be permitted to hold more than fifty shares and no further share shall be allotted or transferred to any person who already holds fifty shares in the Corporation." Clause 1 (2) reads: "No share shall be allotted to any person unless such person has given in his application for the share the number of the identity card issued or deemed to be issued to him under the provisions of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, 1955; and such number shall be shown in the Register of Shares and on the share certificate issued to the person." Sub-clause (3) reads: "Subject to the provisions of this section, all shares shall be transferable." Clause 2 (1) reads: "The Directors shall have power from time to time to regulate the floating and issue of shares-" and so on. Nothing prevents any man from being the nominal holder of a share and holding it in trust for somebody else. There is nothing in this Schedule to prevent a wealthy man from getting other people to buy all the shares for him and getting everyone of them to sign a declaration of trust that he is the nominal holder of shares for someone else. This is common practice - "I (so and so), who appear as the nominal holder of shares Nos. (so and so), hereby declare that I hold them in trust for (so and so)." In my view, all this is just so much sound and fury, and it is going to come to nothing. But since we have to be logical and pursue things to their logical conclusion-first, we should reduce the figure to 10 shares if we want to help the workers and not the middle class; secondly, we make it an offence for anyone to hold more than that either as nominee or as beneficial owner. Another proviso, a completely new proviso, will have to be worked out to make it an offence for anyone to hold it on trust for another beneficiary.

The hon. Member is, of course, out of time if he is thinking of moving an amendment, because under Standing Order 51, paragraph 2, "no amendment shall be proposed", that is to a Bill, "unless two clear days' notice thereof has been given." But, of course, the hon. Member may seek the assent of the Assembly under the provisions of Standing Order 23.

Sir, I will move an amendment under the Standing Order you have indicated.

At the appropriate time.

Sir, if one cannot stymie the Government in carrying out something which is good, then one puts obstacles in the way. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, who has a very good knowledge of the law, proposes to put obstacles. First, he mentioned the middle class bourgeois (and other political terms which the hon. Member is good at using). Sir, my intention is contained in my original statement which the hon. Member does not care to read-these shares are intended for the ordinary man and woman in Singapore. The middle-class man, that is the clerk, is also a working man. And any government does not necessarily look to the interests of the labouring class only but also to the interests of all the citizens, and the working class man, according to my definition, is also the clerk as well as the labourer. This is an attempt, Sir, to gain further time to try to stymie the Bill. At the worst, he now tells the public that this is a capitalist government because it offers 50 shares and not 10 shares. He has failed in his attempt to convince his left-wing supporters through the Press that this is a bad move, because I have given all the points, the profit angle, and so on, and it will be very difficult for him to challenge me. Sir, I am not inclined to fall into the trap that 50 shares will create capitalism in the middle class. I am also not inclined to give my assent to his move to reduce the number of shares from 50 to 10. If he were genuine about it, he should have given notice; the Bill after it was introduced has been with him for nearly a month. The other point he raised - and he is a clever lawyer - about a person holding shares in trust has got me confounded a bit. Sir, a simple mind like mine does not work out the intricate ways of overcoming the law, but a clever mind, like that of a lawyer of his calibre, would be capable of working that out. I am glad, Sir, he has pointed that out to me. And if we find later on that this restrictive clause is abused, then certainly an amendment will be moved at that time to remedy that. But one cannot foresee all the loopholes that could arise as a result of a new law, because if one did then the lawyers would have no income left. One would have plugged the loopholes at the outset, and there would be no lawyers, and the hon. Member would probably not be able to sit here.

That is the business of the Legislative-

Order. The hon. Member will have another opportunity to speak. We are in Committee.

Sir, first of all, I would like to point out to the Hon. Minister that if it is true, as he has admitted that he has a simple mind, then we should ask him to confine it to simple subjects. But when he has embarked on the intricate and highly complex business of floating something which is neither a co-operative nor a nationalised industry nor a mutualised industry, something that does not fall in all the known categories of political thinking anywhere in this world, when indeed he embarks on a highly complex and intriguing situation, we expect a complex mind to bring itself to bear on the problem with the thoroughness and expertise which have been lacking in this case. It is no use his telling us that we will wait and see whether people abuse the lacuna that he has allowed within the Schedule. How and when is he going to find this out? Let me tell him this: we do not want to waste time to try and block this Bill. We know the Bill will be passed today. We have not the slightest intention of blocking it. We know it will come to nothing. Further we will tell him this: unless he makes an amendment now - and he might obtain your permission, Sir, to get to work with his legal adviser for ten minutes. If he likes, I am prepared to give him my assistance free, to work out a clause to make it impossible for people to buy up shares in the name of the nominal holders. All this talk about nobody holding more than fifty shares: we will look after the clerk; we will look after the trisha riders; we will look after the taxi drivers; we will even look after the poor millionaires - all that it is going to do, if it is in fact the way he envisages it in his dream - the B.A.T. working hard to produce profits for him, and he says, "Ah, you people of Singapore, I have got the B.A.T. to work for you; 49 per cent - here you are." If it works out the way he dreams it, then we are all going to fall into the hands of a few racketeers who will corner the share market. That is all. And when he later moves an amendment, there will be a hue and cry against retrospective legislation. And one of the things that he will not be able to do without being accused of being undemocratic is to legislate retrospectively penal legislation of this nature. Sir, let him consult his legal adviser. We are not in the least bit concerned whether this Bill goes through or not, but his legal adviser will tell him that it is wrong to legislate retrospectively on penal legislation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my mind is sometimes simple, sometimes brilliant, but in whatever state my mind may be, Sir, I cannot visualize any one single millionaire in Singapore who will trust 1,000 individuals, unknown to him, with 50 shares registered in each of their names. If one such individual does not cheat him, others will. We may have some millionaires in this Assembly. Will a millionaire trust 1,000 individuals unknown to him, with 50 shares registered in each of their names in trust for him? So, Sir, although an amendment may be necessary for the purpose of preventing one or two individuals from abusing the intention of this Bill, the danger of having a millionaire investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in the name of 50, 100 or 1,000 individuals in trust for him, will never happen.

Sir, I feel almost abashed at the idea of a trade union lawyer trying to give advice to a rich man's lawyer. If accompanying the document of trust you also hold the shares and make sure you send your representative to collect the dividends on the basis of the shares, surely a rich man's lawyer like the hon. Member Mr R. C. H. Lim could well work out - and I am sure he must in his long and successful career at the Bar have worked out - one thousand and one guarantees to make sure that the money having been transferred and all the formalities having been gone through, there is a sufficient grasp on the documents to prevent any swindling. I do not want to be accused of having joined the fierce people who constantly terrify the Minister for Commerce and Industry and make him go into sudden and unexpected retreat. But I would ask him, with your consent, Sir, to adjourn this House for ten minutes and work out a new clause so that it becomes penal before it comes into operation. I spent some time in New Delhi recently discussing the rule of law. The Attorney-General will be interested to know this, one of the fundamental principles which was upheld was that there should be no penal legislation which is retrospective. You can have retrospective civil legislation. You can try and right something which was done wrong; but if a man has already acquired a beneficial interest in 100,000 of those shares and you then make it a crime retrospectively, it is contrary to the rule of law. So, I would suggest a ten-minute adjournment to help the Minister for Commerce and Industry out.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is one of the greatest social legislative measures ever passed in this House, a measure which is going to give members of the lower income group a chance to be shareholders of a company, and perhaps directors of a company. Imagine the pride of an ordinary clerk, a hawker, a trishaw rider holding shares and being a director of a company! Never has it happened before. Government is offering that opportunity. Sir, an amendment may be necessary to make sure that any trust would not be recognised. There may be no need for any penalty to be affixed, but the Government should refuse to recognise any trust. And any limited company has always provided that no trust will be recognised.

Sir, I do not want to start a legal debate with a gentleman who is expert in stabilising the worries of other people, but -

Order. I think perhaps we should avoid personalities.

Indeed, Sir, I was just trying to say, with humility, how reluctant I am to embark on a legal dissertation in this House. But to pass a law subsequent to this and say that all trusts shall henceforth be ignored, implies forfeiture of a man's beneficial interest, and that is penal legislation. It is as simple as that. If you say to a man who has acquired a beneficial interest in property that his beneficial interest will not be recognised, that is penal, because you are confiscating his property. As for Mr R. C. H. Lim's point that all companies do not recognise trusts, that is true, for the purposes of their company's books. They do not care whether A's share is held in trust for B or C or D. They pay A or whoever has got the share scrip, and that is the end of the company's liability. But B, who is the beneficial owner can enforce his beneficial interest against A. It is as simple as this. If I hold 50 shares, and one quiet day I am inveigled to sell them to the Hon. Minister for Commerce and Industry, and I sign a document to say that I hold them in trust for him, and then I go and collect the money, as far as the People's Investment Corporation are concerned, they have paid the shareholder. They are not interested. But if I refuse to pay the Hon. Minister for Commerce and Industry what I have acquired for him, because he is the beneficial owner, an action lies against me to hand over the proceeds. If the Attorney-General comes along and says that all that shall be illegal, that is penal legislation made retrospective because, at the time the poor Minister acquired the beneficial interest, it was not illegal to do so.

Sir, I am rather lost in this. To my way of thinking, if a man goes and gets a thousand persons to become shareholders and agree to write that they have given him their shares as trustee, the dividend that the company pays out will still only be paid to the registered holders.

To whoever holds the share scrip.

No. It is the normal company practice that, on a certain date before paying out the dividend, the transfer books are closed and then the dividend warrants are made out in the names of the registered shareholders. Now, if a person has gone and bought shares from 1,000 persons be cannot claim the dividend. The dividend will be paid to the registered shareholders, and these shareholders may refuse to give him the dividend, because he cannot then legally say, "I own these shares", since a person is prohibited from owning more than 50 shares. So that dividend will be paid only to the registered shareholders, who can then refuse to pay him. I do not think a man would then go and sue these one thousand persons for such small amounts like $200 or $300 each, that being the dividend. That is my interpretation. However, as I said, I will look into this question. I marvel at the ability of the Member for Tanjong Pagar to make a mountain out of a mole hill! The other thing is the way he has described this new scheme. He says the scheme does not fall into any of the political thoughts-

Categories.

Yes. I am sorry. I did not catch the word.

It does not fall into any category of socialist enterprise.

That shows the narrow confines within which his political theories work. He cannot get away from the narrow confines of Marxism, "Thisism" or Thatism"! He cannot imagine new ideas or new schemes but he must perforce confine himself only to those that are thought out by others. I do not know, Sir, whether an amendment is necessary, but I shall certainly look into the question. If an amendment is necessary, I shall then bring up an amending Bill to incorporate the amendment. At this stage, Sir, I do not think an amendment is necessary, because I think the fears expressed by the Member are just too imaginary. Possibly he has been able, by his command of English and his knowledge of law, to try to exaggerate those fears, so that the public reading the newspapers will open themselves to a future suggestion, "Ah, this is the way a capitalist government try to make the capitalists own this company."

I want to make a point of clarification on the shares. It has been stated that a dividend cannot be paid to anybody else but the registered shareholder. But as I understand it any registered shareholder can give directions, "Please do this." I also do not see anywhere where it says no person can mortgage his shares. Surely there is nothing to stop him from borrowing money on the shares if he wants to.

Sir, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister for Commerce and Industry to the Schedule at page 3, clause 3 on the redemption of shares. It states there: "The shares of the Corporation shall be redeemable at par at the office of the Corporation or at such other piece or places as may be decided by the Corporation: Provided that where shares are presented for redemption payment for such shares may be made by the Corporation within three months of the date of presentation." As we know, these shares will be sold to the lower income group, as Mr R. C. H. Lim has just said - the taxi-drivers, bus conductors and other working-class people. What I want to know is why must it take three months from the date of presentation before the investor can redeem his shares? A person in the lower income group may save a few hundred dollars and then buy shares from the Corporation; later he may suddenly find himself in urgent need of money. In such cases, provision should be made for this type of people to redeem their shares and get the money back. We must provide them with the facility to withdraw or redeem their money immediately without their having to wait for three months.

The three-month clause is an enabling clause. It says a maximum of three months. It means that there is nothing to prevent the early repayment of the money in the case of a person redeeming his shares. But supposing there is a run on the Corporation, and all the money of the Corporation is invested, then this three-month clause will come into use, because that will give the Corporation time to get assistance from the Government to redeem these shares, since the Government is guaranteeing these shares and will have to pay up. Before Government can pay up this money, we have to get the Treasury to raise the funds and so on. Therefore, the three-month period will come in useful. But normally in simple and straight-forward cases, a man seeking redemption will get his money at once. 5.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is true to say that a company, on the proper authority from the shareholder, must pay the dividend to the person so authorised by the shareholder. But, Sir, in actual practice, as I have said before, can anyone imagine a millionaire of any type asking for an authority from a hawker that the dividend from his 50 shares be paid to him?

Why not? The Government-

Order. The hon. Member will have an opportunity to speak.

However much we may dislike a person who has accumulated his wealth, we cannot underestimate his intelligence. Will a millionaire buy shares in the name of 1,000 nominees? Is it worth his while to go to the trouble of getting 1,000 persons and to give written authority to his nominees to collect the dividends on the shares? In actual practice this will never happen. In fact, from the very beginning, I have suggested a little amendment - "no holding on trust". But I have been convinced by the Minister that in actual practice this will not happen, and I think he is right.

May I inquire from the Minister whether he is against a man mortgaging shares or putting them on pledge and so on? All these intricacies must surely have been given their due consideration by his adroit mind.

Mr Speaker, Sir, sometimes a man is in need of money. As these will be poor people, therefore, if a man is in need of money quickly, he can either come for redemption and get his money quickly, or, if there is a delay in redemption, then he can mortgage his shares and raise the money temporarily.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr R. C. H. Lim has said that ordinarily nobody would be interested in investing money in 1,000 people holding 50 shares each. But the eventual danger really is when the Corporation succeeds and makes money like 100 per cent or 200 per cent profit. Then if the shareholder is allowed to mortgage his shares, he could be induced to borrow money from somebody with the shares as guarantee. There are ways whereby people will get interest. If a $500 share were to go up to, say, $2,000, you will find businessmen interested in offering the shareholder something like $1,000 as a loan - knowing that he is a registered owner of the shares - and then extracting, not the dividend itself, but the equivalent of the dividend as interest. There is the danger. If the Corporation is very successful, then the danger will arise.

Sir, I do not consider that a danger. That is one time when the poor working man has his own back on the capitalist, and sells him something at a greatly enhanced price. Usually it is the reverse. Therefore, I will be very happy if a working man who owns a $10 share can sell it for $1,000.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like the Hon. Minister to clarify the Schedule. "The shares of the Corporation shall be redeemable al par". Is this Corporation a revolving Corporation? Is there any power to re-issue shares after they have been redeemed? Is there such a thing as a re-issue? There is also one other point. I wonder whether the Minister has thought of, Sir. The Corporation has many, many small shareholders. They are restricted to $500 each. Dividends are paid subject to the reduction of tax, like every other corporation. So if you pay five per cent in one year on $500-$25 less 40 per cent brings it down to $15. Everyone of these shareholders - let us say there are 20,000 - makes a claim or fills up an income tax form and claims a return of their income tax. I do not say it is a bad thing, but is it one of those things that should have been thought out when the Schedule was drawn up?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if it were the intention that the shareholders should make five per cent profit, this Corporation would not have been floated. I gave the figure of $9 million on the cigarette industry as the possible profit accruing. If the factory requires $5 million capital, half of it will come to $2½ million. If the profit factor were only $2 million or $3 million on the $5 million capital, the percentage would probably come to 50 or 60 per cent profit. Therefore, the Singapore man would get between $200 and $300 on his $500 investment. That is my own working out of the possibilities, but the real possibilities will be worked out in the form of a prospectus. The answer to the other question raised, Sir, is in the affirmative.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule-

Sir, since the Minister has already indicated his intention not to give heed to my application for leave to change the figure "50" to "10", or rather, despite his intention not to agree, I shall still ask you, Sir, to ask the House for their assent to change "50" to "10". My reason in so moving is quite simply this. There is no difficulty in any one person owning anywhere between five and ten times the figure actually set down here. The average family - mother, father, five children, plus grandfather and grandmother - comes to nine. Nine times 50 shares will bring it up to 450 shares-

Order. I have allowed the Member to carry on up to now, but I think he ought to ask for leave first.

As you please, Mr Speaker, Sir. I ask for the assent of the House to move an amendment, That the word "fifty" in clause 1 (1) of the Schedule be struck off and the word "ten" be inserted.

Hon. Members, of course, are aware that notice of an amendment of that nature ought to have been given, but the hon. Member is asking for assent under the provisions of Standing Order 23, which reads: "Notice shall not be dispensed with in the case of a motion or in respect of any other proceeding for which notice is required except with the consent of the Speaker and the general assent of Members present." I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the motion be moved?

May I crave your indulgence, Sir? You have given the hon. mover of that motion a chance to speak. I would like to be given a chance to explain why we cannot agree to give our assent.

I do not think the hon. Member went as far as that. I think the hon. Member spoke on the merits of his amendment, and that is all. If any Member on the Government Bench wishes to comment on that aspect, then assent should be given. The question will then be before the Assembly and then a debate could take place. But if no assent is given, then, of course, that is the end of the matter. I repeat my question. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that assent should be given? Is it "Aye" or "No"? That is all I want.

May I rise on a point of clarification?

Yes.

Will you be calling each item on the Schedule? Will we again have the opportunity to speak on the Schedule?

Yes.

In which case the clarification the Chief Minister now seeks could be given later.

But not, of course, as to the reasons why assent is not being given.

No.

On a point of clarification. Is this assent to be given in regard to this number of shares?

Assent to the request by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar that he be given leave to move an amendment of which he has not given notice. And the amendment he has suggested is in page 2, line 33, to leave out "fifty" and there to insert "ten". All I need now is an "Aye" or a "No". Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that absent be given? Some hon. Members: Aye.

Sir, I am obliged that, as a result of confusion amongst the S.P.A. Ministers,-

Order. It is getting rather late and I do not think we should indulge in any more personalities.

Indeed, Sir, I was anonymous in my reference. Nevertheless, the point that I was making was that in Singapore, where the size of an average family is anywhere between five and ten - father, mother, three to five children, grandfather, grandmother, uncles and aunts - there is no difficulty for any single person to own anything between five and ten times the statutory maximum number of shares. I have indicated earlier - and the Minister for Commerce and Industry agreed with me - that it is extremely unlikely that the average worker will have even $100 to invest and that the limit of $500 is the average investment potential of the middle class. Therefore, if we allow 50 shares to be the maximum, then in fact we are allowing the average man with a family of five to ten people to own 500 shares. Apart from the question whether Mr R. C. H. Lim thinks that it is a risk or it is not a risk to hold just a beneficial interest in shares - there is no risk whatsoever in any person holding them in his name or in the names of his wife, his five children, his aged father and his mother. He collects the dividends and it is his investment. Then, far from it just being a $500 investment, it becomes a $5,000 investment; or if the size of the family is sufficiently large, or there are sufficient numbers of faithful retainers in the family, it may well be 50 or 60 times the statutory maximum number of shares. I therefore ask the House to join me in my amendment that "fifty" be changed to "ten".

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the Second Reading of this Bill, it was pointed out by the hon. mover of this amendment that the scheme would not be successful and that nothing would come out of it. In order to ensure that it will not be successful and that nothing will come out of it, he is doing all he can during the Committee stage to try and confuse the public of Singapore with regards to the intentions of the Government and the usefulness of the scheme which the Minister has embodied in his Bill. While it is true that no labouring class man would be in a position to own 50 shares all at once, it does not mean that he should be deprived of the opportunity to increase his holdings up to a maximum of 50 shares in due course of time. Again I say that this is another attempt on the part of the Opposition, particularly the P.A.P., to try to make it impossible for this scheme to go forward. If we reduced it to ten shares only, Sir, it would increase the work of the Corporation in seeking the $10 million required. If it is up to a maximum of fifty shares, the time factor and the number of people who would like to participate in the scheme would be considerably reduced. The Member said he did not think that it was a good scheme and it was a matter of opinion. Therefore, he would like to make it more difficult by limiting the number of shares for each person to ten shares! We oppose the amendment, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, do I understand from the Hon. the Chief Minister's reply that, in fact, he agrees with me that the average investment possible is five to ten times fifty shares? He has not given an answer to that. All that he is able to put forward in justification of keeping it at 50 shares is that perhaps a poor man can only buy one $10 share and that in the course of time, when he accumulates more capital, he can buy fifty shares. That is the most specious argument ever put forward in this House. If the Corporation is a success, all the shares will be snapped up. If it is a flop, the poor man will be wanting back his $10 which the Government had guaranteed at par. Never mind about motives and intentions! Let us meet arguments with arguments! My argument is that if you say 50 shares is the maximum, in effect, in the Asian society in Singapore, an average family man will be able to hold 500 shares. Every lawyer knows that no wealthy man holds properties in his name. He has properties in the names of all his various wives, girl friends, uncles, grand aunts, nephews and a whole retinue of camp followers. With this practice of five to ten members of an average man's family holding shares, the investment becomes anywhere from $5,000 to $15,000. In other words, far from weeping at the thought of the poor man who, for the first time in his life is given a chance to become a Director in case he gets elected by all his other poor fellowmen, it will be the usual ring of shareholders and share investors who will take the profit out of the Singapore Investment Corporation. 5.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether I am making a mistake but just now I heard the Member for Tanjong Pagar say that he was only interested in facing an argument with an argument, and that the debate was not on motives and intentions. Sir, I think that is quite wrong. We are debating an important Bill. If the Member for Tanjong Pagar takes such an attitude towards this debate, he is merely wasting our time, Sir, I want to ask the Member for Tanjong Pagar this. What is the reason for his moving such an amendment? Why is it wrong for a family of 5, 10 or even 20 persons buying 50 shares each? It is not a matter of facing an argument with an argument, but it is one of principle. What is the intention of the hon. Member by bringing up this amendment? What is wrong for a big family wanting to buy 250 shares under different names?

What is wrong is that the Member for Tanjong Pagar did not first think of the idea, and he does not want to acknowledge that this is a good move. I marvel, Sir, at him. If I ever need a lawyer, I promise that I will go and see him.

Order. I have stopped the Member for Tanjong Pagar from indulging in personalities, and the Minister is now embarking on personalities.

I am sorry, Sir, It was not meant in any bad sense. At first, he tried to build it into something that is useless and which will come to nought. Now he tries to twist the angle, that he is the champion of the people fighting for the poor labourer against the imaginary bourgeois - the middle-class! Sir, why is the $500 necessary? The $500 is the maximum enabling figure. It need not necessarily follow that every one must be given shares up to the value of $500. In normal company practice, when shares are floated, if the shares applied for are more than the number of shares to be floated, they are then allocated in proportion to the number of shares applied for. Sir, if the first floatation was for $2½ million or $3 million as a start for a cigarette factory venture, and instead, of 20,000 applicants there are 100,000 applicants, then those applying for 50 shares each will get ten shares each. It is up to the Corporation to allocate the shares. No person can say, "I have applied for 50 shares and therefore I must get 50 shares." In reply to the Hon. the Chief Minister, the hon. Member said that if the Corporation was a success all the shares would be snapped up. That is not so. All the shares of each floatation will be snapped up. It is not intended to float all the $10 million at the same time, if the venture is a success, the Directors can call for its extension and this will mean finding more money. Then that is the time when new people can come into the venture, because all shares will rank pari passu - that is stated in the Schedule. The Directors could then say that the existing shareholders should not get the shares and that new applicants should get the new issue of shares. They could very well say that. It is up to the Minister, Sir, to direct if he wishes to do so, because there will be three appointed Directors and the Chairman will be appointed by the Minister.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

If the Minister will give way. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy resumed his seat.

Sir, is the Minister accepting responsibility for issuing the shares when he says that the Directors may not issue what a particular person applies for, and may not even issue them to one particular person?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not a question of the Minister being responsible for the issue of shares. The Minister can give a directive on all the things that come within his portfolio. For instance, I can give a general directive - I think the Governor in Council can - to the Industrial Promotion Board, and so on. In fact, this is not a matter where a Minister will say, "I exercise this by my authority." It is a matter of general directive for the public good. That is all.

Sir, let me wind up the argument on principle. We are not just arguing for the sake of argument. The argument is based on the principle of this Bill. This Bill will come to nought. The Government is insisting on going through with it. I am now holding the Government to the principle it has enunciated as the raison d'etre of this Bill. The raison d'etre, I understood from the Minister for Commerce and Industry, is not to help the share-owning class to own more shares in a guaranteed profitable concern, but to help the usually non-share-owning class - the poor workers - who have not got $500 to invest anyway, to get them firstly, to save money; secondly, to invest the money on industry; and, thirdly, to provide them with good profits. I am saying that if you want to achieve that, then that principle is not being achieved when you limit the maximum to 50 times $10, which is $500 per person. As I have explained - and nobody had the audacity to refute it - there is no difficulty in Singapore to multiply that by five to ten. If the Government sincerely believes that the purpose is to help the non-share-owning public to own shares, then the maximum ownership of the number of shares should be reduced. If, in fact, that is not the scheme but it is, in the words of the Minister for Commerce and Industry, "only a political stunt", then so be it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I heard the hon. Member say that no one had the audacity to refute the reason for his amendment. It would mean, Sir, that if any one had the courage to stand up to refute any reason of his, it is audacity. What cheek and what impertinence!

Order. It pains me to have to pull up the Chief Minister on a point of order of that nature. I am sure that he did know, before he used those words, that they are completely unparliamentary and I ask him to withdraw those words.

I beg to withdraw both those words. Well, it may be better to leave things unsaid! One can see how I feel. If anyone says anything to refute the reasons put forward by the hon. Member, it is audacity. Sir, I am not audacious at all. I have never been and I hope I will never be. But I say that the Government is introducing this measure in order to bring in the working class to participate in a cigarette factory. That has been mentioned. The Opposition, particularly the P.A.P., says that it cannot be done. All right, they are entitled to their view. We say that it can be done and we are doing all we can to prove that we are right. We do not feel that we need any assistance from them to try to carry out what we think is right. Amendment negatived.

Sir, I move, In page 4, line 22, to leave out "nominated" and insert "appointed". This is a drafting amendment to bring it in line with the language used in other parts of the Schedule. Amendment agreed to. The Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[The Chief Minister]. Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Six o'clock p.m. to Monday, 26th January, 1959.