Hansard, 1960-12-29

I have to inform honourable Members that at 13 minutes past 2 o'clock today, I received a letter from the Member for Hong Lim, Mr Ong Eng Guan, which reads as follows: `Mr Speaker, Legislative Assembly of Singapore. Sir, I herewith tender my resignation under section 42 (2) (f) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, from the Legislative Assembly of Singapore with immediate effect. Yours faithfully, Ong Eng Guan (Assemblyman for Hong Lim).' In accordance with the relevant section, the seat of the Member has become vacant, and under section 44, I shall duly report the vacancy to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, and the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law for the time being in force in Singapore.

On the 23rd day of December, 1960, the then hon. Member for Hong Lim drew my attention to that day's Straits Times containing what he described as an account of that day's proceedings, that is to say, the proceedings in the matter of the motion moved by the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to that Member. The article in question was captioned. "Ong must cite law to back his motion". The Member referred to two paragraphs therein and invited my opinion as to whether - to quote his words - "any of the passages referred to is a matter which is sub judice". I then expressed the opinion that there was no matter which could be considered sub judice at that moment, the expression "sub judice" being used with reference to a court of law. Hon. Members will of course know, for example, that under Standing Order No. 19 relating to the contents of questions, no question may be asked which reflects on the decision of a court of law and no question shall be asked on any matter which is sub judice; and again under Standing Order No. 46 relating to the contents of speeches, reference cannot be made to any matter which is sub judice except by means of or in the course of consideration of a Bill when reference may be made, but only in such a way as will not, in the opinion of the Speaker or Chairman, prejudice the interests of parties thereto. I might add that in the application of those Standing Orders the term "sub judice" has been construed to have reference to matters pending in a court of law and in a Commission of Inquiry. The then Member for Hong Lim, however, in response to my enquiry, stated that he wished to raise his point as a matter of privilege, drawing my attention to the fact that the report was contained not only in the Straits Times but also in other newspapers. I do not think that the fact that the same report or article is contained in more than one newspaper could make any difference to a ruling as to whether there has been any breach of privilege. The passages quoted by the then Member for Hong Lim as being in breach of privilege of this Assembly are- Firstly: "This right has been admitted in the case of the House of Commons and in all Legislatures patterned after it." The right referred to has reference to the right mentioned in the article in the two passages immediately preceding the passage quoted. These two passages read as follows:- "Mr Ong's motion not only asks the House to rescind the Speaker's ruling but also claims that the Assembly has no powers either to condemn him or seek his suspension if he does not apologise or repeat outside the Assembly the "malicious falsehoods" he is accused of having made in the Assembly. It, in effect, challenges the constitutional principle that the Legislature has the inherent right, as stated in Standing Order 56, of "proceeding against any member according to any resolution of the Assembly." Secondly, that is to say, the second passage quoted by the then Member for Hong Lim is as follows:- "Last Monday, the Speaker ruled that under Standing Orders the Assembly had powers to discuss the motion and, if the evidence warranted it, to find the member guilty of `dishonourable conduct'. He also said that the Assembly had inherent powers, should a member be found guilty, to suspend or even expel him." In regard to the first passage, it is apparent that it merely purported to be an analysis of the legal position which in fact had been urged by the Deputy Prime Minister in his speech delivered when he moved the motion, as is apparent in the next passage in the article in question which reads as follows:- "Dr Toh, in his speech on Monday, had cited cases to show that the Singapore Assembly had these rights too." In regard to the second passage, it appears to be a paraphrase of what I myself said, albeit not exactly a complete or accurate paraphrase. The passage has been taken out of context and must be considered in the light of the following paragraph which reads:- "However, he expressed doubts as to what extent the extreme powers of expulsion and suspension could be exercised by the Assembly." If the then Member for Hong Lim in drawing my attention to the passages quoted by him and by using the term "sub judice" sought to infer that the passages are in the nature of comment calculated to prejudice the proceedings pending on the motion of the Deputy Prime Minister, then I am bound to say that I disagree; I take the view that there is nothing in those passages, more especially when not read out of context, which can be said to have that effect. This must not be taken to mean that I am ruling that any person who publishes any matter which is prejudicial to proceedings pending in the Assembly must necessarily be in breach of the privileges of the Assembly. Such a publication must, to my mind, first fall within the mischief of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, 1955, which in section 24 specifically makes the publication of certain statements and writings an offence. In the event, therefore, I cannot say that there has been prima facie any breach of privilege in relation to the matters raised by the then Member for Hong Lim and do not therefore propose to take any further action in the matter.

My attention has been drawn to a statement purported to be issued by the chairman of the Workers Party and published in the Straits Times of Saturday, December 24th, 1960. The publication reads as follows: STATEMENT BY WORKERS PARTY SINGAPORE. Fri.- The Chairman of the Workers Party, Mr David Marshall, today issued this statement: "The first meeting of the new executive committee of the Workers Party repeats that the Workers Party is not associated with Mr Ong Eng Guan and had never been associated with Mr Ong, but expresses its sympathy and respect for the heroic effort of Mr Ong in struggling against the attempt of the P.A.P. Government to silence him and nullify the choice of the people of Hong Lim."' Hon. Members will recollect that on the 19th day of December, 1960, before the Deputy Prime Minister moved his motion in relation to the then Member for Hong Lim (Mr Ong Eng Guan), I went to some length to indicate that in my view, the motion should on no account be considered as a motion of censure and punishment moved in the interests of Government or of individuals in the Government, but should be treated as a motion which related to the dignity and prestige of this Assembly and therefore was a motion in the interests of the Assembly as a whole. I went on to say that if the House was satisfied that the conduct of the hon. Member for Hong Lim was such as to be an affront to its own dignity and prestige in the sense inter alia that that conduct had brought discredit to the House as a whole - not merely to individual Members of the Government Parliamentary Party or indeed to any other Member of the House or to persons outside the House - then the House might feel itself justified in condemning or censuring the hon. Member for Hong Lim and thereafter in proceeding to consider what punishment, consonant with its powers, it should mete out to him. I finally stressed that the motion would and had to proceed as a motion which affected the House as a whole and which invited the House in the first instance to say whether its dignity and prestige had not been affronted by the conduct of the hon. Member for Hong Lim. In my view, therefore, the statement by the Chairman of the Workers Party is prima facie a gross, wilful and scandalous misrepresentation of the proceedings of this Assembly within the meaning of subsection (1) (c) of section 24 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, 1955, and I have accordingly referred the matter to the State Advocate-General for such action as he may think fit to take under that Ordinance.

"to make temporary amendments to the Control of Rent Ordinance (Chapter 242 of the Revised Edition) and to restrict proceedings thereunder", presented by the Acting Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr Ong Chang Sam); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 11th January, 1961, and to be printed.

Order for Second and Third Readings read. 2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that this Bill be proceeded with. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, the Main Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the public service during the year 1961 have been considered and approved by the Assembly at its last sitting as Sessional Paper Cmd. No. 26 of 1960. It is now necessary to give legislative approval to the expenditure of the sums shown in these Estimates and the annual Appropriation Bill now before Members is intended so to provide. Under section 97 (1) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, an Appropriation Bill containing under appropriate heads of expenditure, the sums of money which are required for the several services of Government shall be introduced into the Assembly. The Appropriation Bill lays out all the amounts approved by the Assembly in the Estimates of Expenditure and arranged under the Heads of Expenditure shown on page 31 of Cmd. No. 26 of 1960. These sums shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund and once the Appropriation Bill has been approved, the Minister for Finance will be empowered to issue warrants authorising expenditure up to the amount under each Head in the Appropriation Bill to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Sir, I beg to move. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Will the Minister proceed with the Third Reading?

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

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

Order for Second Reading read. 2.48 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that this Bill be proceeded with. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be read a Second time." Sir, the object of this Bill is to provide for the levy of a tax on immovable properties in lieu of rates leviable under the Municipal Ordinance and the Local Government Ordinance, 1957, as on integration of the City Council into the Central Government, it will be no longer proper to levy Local Government rates on lands and buildings, since these are made on the basis of services and utilities of equivalent value being provided from the revenue so obtained. It will be necessary, therefore, to introduce a new system of taxation to replace these rates. The present Bill follows closely the procedure laid down in the Local Government Ordinance for the assessment of annual value of property and collection of rates. At present, rates are collected for the City area under powers contained in the Local Government Ordinance and for the rural areas under the Municipal Ordinance. The consolidated rate payable in respect of properties in the City area is now 36 per cent and section 7 of the Property Tax Ordinance lays down that the property tax payable each year shall be at this same rate of 36 per cent. Some areas outside the City limits are, however, paying rates at less than 36 per cent applicable to the City area. It is intended to continue this practice of charging lower rates for rural areas and the first proviso to section 7 enables the Minister to direct that the rate or tax in such areas shall be such rate or rate less than 36 per cent. The property tax proposals for 1961 are briefly as follows. At present, properties within City limits are assessed at 36 per cent and properties in the rural areas are assessed at 14 per cent, 18 per cent, 20 per cent, 23 per cent, or 36 per cent consolidated rates. Instead of this multiplicity of rates, there will be only three rates of Property Tax for occupied lands, which will be 36 per cent, 27 per cent and 18 per cent. Properties at present paying 36 per cent rates will continue to pay 36 per cent Property Tax on the annual value ascribed to the property. There are certain areas which previously were outside the City limits but which have been brought into the City area by the Local Government Ordinance, 1957, as defined in the First Schedule to the Ordinance. They comprise largely the areas at Pasir Panjang, Buona Vista, Ulu Pandan, Holland Road and Ulu Kallang. These areas were assessed at 23 per cent when they were in the rural areas and the assessment of 23 per cent was continued, although they were brought into the City limits with the coming into force of the Local Government Ordinance. These areas will now pay the rate of 36 per cent instead of 23 per cent. There are also a number of housing estates in the rural areas which pay 23 per cent assessment. They are Adelphi Park, Sembawang Hill, Thomson Rise, Windsor Park, Serangoon Garden, Seletar Hill, Opera Estate, Spring and Bedok Estates, Hongkong Park, Bukit Timah Park and King Albert Park. These housing estates have enjoyed urban facilities as lighting, water, roads and so forth, and will therefore pay 36 per cent rate. The 27 per cent rate areas will include areas at present paying 19 per cent, 20 per cent and 23 per cent. These areas will include properties lying within-

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are one or two aspects of the Bill upon which I wish to touch. The first, Mr Speaker, Sir, which I think is a very serious one, is the Minister's statement that in future it is not proposed to give refunds in respect of unoccupied property. And the basis for the change in law, it would appear, according to the Minister, is that as this is considered to be a property tax, therefore the mere owning of the property should attract the tax, whether or not the property, in fact, produces any income. That, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a very serious statement for the Minister for Finance to make. I personally cannot see any difference, from the taxing point of view, whether property is immovable or movable. The Minister for Finance says that if anybody in Singapore should be so foolish as to put his surplus money which is lying in the bank without earning any income, on a piece of land which, through circumstances beyond his control, ceases to produce any income, then that property is still liable to tax. Contra - if he keeps his money lying idle in the bank not earning any income, as the Minister has not yet decided to introduce a capital tax, he would be exempt from taxation in so far as his idle money is concerned. What then is the difference between tile two! If a man shakes a leg a bit and wants to help me State and himself, anti invests his money anti puts it to some profitable use, then me Minister says, "Because it is a property tax, I must tax you on the property even though it does not earn any income." Supposing a person owns 10 houses in, say, North Bridge Road, and if a slump were to come - it might yet come within the time of the present Government, some say it is already here - then that person who has 10 houses unlet would have to pay tax at 36 per cent. Where does he get his money from to pay this 36 per cent? He will end up in ruination, and so will the property market. And it the property market is brought to ruination, Mr Speaker, Sir, me economy of Singapore also would to a large extent be ruined. Now, I would ask the Government to reconsider this proposition very seriously; even the principle is unacceptable. I can see no justification for saying that merely because you own property, you should pay tax on it. I think the property should be put to some use in respect of which the State is providing services. That is the basic proposition on which municipal assessments are levied, Mr Speaker, Sir, and not because you own property. The mere owning of property, from a municipal point of view, does not attract rates. But if the property is of such a nature that it attracts municipal services to itself, or the preservation of which depends on the provision of adequate municipal services, then in return for those services a rate is levied. That is the basis on which municipal rates are levied. The Property Tax says: `An Ordinance to provide for the levy of a tax on immovable properties in lieu of the rates previously leviable ...'. Apparently the Government has forgotten the basis on which this rate was levied by the City Council and rural authorities. All they are interested in is the monies which they can collect, not the purpose for which the monies are collected. If a house falls vacant, Mr Speaker, Sir, then it is not using municipal services -it is not using water; it is not using light; it is not using sewerage facilities. What are the facilities which the Government is providing in respect of that house on which they claim a 36 per cent tax? It is inequitable; it is scandalous. If that sort of thing is allowed to come about, Mr Speaker, Sir, there will be no building estates built in Singapore. The Government has already stated, in the building sector anyway, that it is both an enterprise between the Government and the private sector in order that adequate housing might be provided for Singapore in future years. Government hopes to build 9,000 houses next year. I do not think they will, but if they do build, it will be a very good effort. But according to plans, we need at least 15,000 to 20,000 houses per year if we want to provide for the increasing population, not to catch up, but merely to provide for the increasing population. If Government introduces legislation which is going to not only discourage but also stop private development then I cannot see how it is going to bring adequate housing accommodation to Singapore. My experience of Government is that they say one thing and they do another. They say they want to encourage housing. They say, "We want to encourage people to build houses." I ask the Minister for Finance: does he, in all seriousness, think that this omission of the refund of tax now possible under the Local Government Ordinance, whereby a person whose house is unoccupied can go to him and claim a refund, is going to help housing projects in Singapore? Let us take a person, or a company, who has 20 acres of land and who wants to develop it. Under present conditions it is very difficult to envisage or to forecast whether all those houses built on the land would be bought or taken up by persons who want to buy houses. Let us assume that that person is a venturesome sort of developer, and he develops. If he sells as much as 50 per cent of the houses to begin with he is lucky, Mr Speaker; the rest of the 50 per cent lie vacant and idle. As soon as he receives a certificate of occupation from the relevant authority, the vacant houses will attract property tax. What happens to the developer? He faces ruination. He is paying a tax of 36 per cent on the balance of the developed property. And what is the annual value under the Property Tax? The annual value, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the rent at which it may reasonably be expected to let from year to year. So it attracts tax at once and the position is that he will have to contribute 36 per cent to the Government by way of tax until such time as he has disposed of his property. This is not the Ordinance, Mr Speaker, Sir, that is going to help bring a building boom to Singapore. If anything it is going to help kill it. The P.A.P. Government has nearly killed the building industry, and this Bill will surely help to put the industry into a coffin and place it well and truly seven feet under the ground.

Six or seven?

An extra one foot for the P.A.P. Government! So that is the position which will ensue if this Bill is passed without the provision which is now already contained in the Local Government Ordinance. Other than that, Mr Speaker, it is merely a duplication of the existing provisions in the Local Government Ordinance and the Municipal Ordinance, except that it gives the Minister a lot of powers personally, which the Local Government Ordinance did not give to the City Council as such. If the powers are used wisely by the Minister, well and good. But if the Minister does not use those powers wisely, but uses them in an oppressive sort of way, then there again it is going to be a bad thing. Mr Speaker, I am against the policy - that Ministers should be allowed wide powers in respect of which the public at large do not know what line each Minister would adopt. The provisions should be embodied in the Ordinance itself. Now, immovable property and investments, Mr Speaker, are matters in respect of which the investing public must be satisfied that the position will be stable for a number of years. If exemptions of this nature are to be left to the individual discretion of the Minister, I am suggesting to the Minister for Finance that that is not the best way to inspire confidence in the investing public. Under the Municipal Ordinance, Mr Speaker, Sir, there were circumstances where areas which were not given all the municipal services were not liable to the complete 36 per cent rates. I hope the Minister will keep that in mind when he considers these various areas from the point of view of the varying rates which he intends to tax. There are certain areas in Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir, which do not have a supply of electricity. There are other areas which do not have a supply of water. There are yet other areas which do not have the sewerage system installed. These are all municipal facilities in respect of which this 36 per cent is being levied by the Government. How the Minister is going to sort out these things area by area, I do not know. But I do hope that when the Minister does make these levies, he will see that he holds a balance between all the areas, and that in respect of each of those areas which does not have all the municipal facilities, an adequately reduced tax is imposed. The only other innovation to the Property Tax Bill which was not in the Local Government Ordinance is the provision whereby industrial premises could also be exempt from the 36 per cent taxation as envisaged for the rest of the properties. I do not propose to touch upon this matter, because my colleague, the Member for Cairnhill, will deal with it. But I do wish to press upon the Minister for Finance this position: that I think this Bill, which proposes to levy a tax on unoccupied property which had previously been rented, Mr Speaker, Sir, is going to have the certain effect of not encouraging builders to build in Singapore. 3.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Budget speech, the Minister for Finance stated that in regard to rural areas, it was not proposed to increase the rates other than where there had been improvements, such as roads, lighting, water and electricity. But in his speech this afternoon, he has told us that at the present time there are five types of rates - 14 per cent, 18 per cent, 20 per cent, 23 per cent and 36 per cent, and it is proposed to reduce this number to three - 36 per cent, 27 per cent and 18 per cent. Therefore, by a mere manipulation of reducing five types of rates to three, those that are in the lower rates become affected. In the case of 14 per cent rate, therefore, there is already a proposed increase of 4 per cent. In the case of the 20 per cent and 23 per cent rates, there is therefore a proposed increased of 7 per cent and 4 per cent respectively. Over and above that, the Minister is proposing that where there are housing estates developed in the rural areas, these will be rated at 36 per cent. There is, therefore, an overall increase throughout all rural areas in Singapore. He has said, Sir, that in the case of vacant land in the city area, it is not proposed to reduce the present rate of 36 per cent. The 36 per cent will remain. But in the case of the other areas, although the present rates are 27 per cent and 18 per cent, it is proposed, if I heard him rightly, to reduce it to 18 per cent and 12 per cent. In regard to industrial premises, the Minister proposes that they should be given this special inducement in order that there can be a greater inducement for the industrialisation of Singapore. Sir, new industries can come in under pioneer status, and as a result of that, there is a sort of monopoly. New industries can also claim a five-year tax holiday. These are, in a way, very material inducements to capital to come and open up factories in Singapore. But to suggest that by giving special rates in regard to property tax, there is going to be a further inducement is, I think, not quite right. What capital is more interested in is not the few extra dollars that can be saved by a reduction in the rates of the property tax, but rather in a stable political climate and industrial peace in Singapore. The Ministry of Labour and Law is doing its best to secure industrial peace, with the co-operation of the T.U.C., although reports would appear that the T.U.C. and the Minister do not see eye to eye on this matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I merely wish to add to what the Member for Farrer Park has said about paying assessment on vacant houses. Even at present, when the rule is that you can claim a refund of tax on houses that are vacant, the refund is not given blindly and haphazardly. The assessor will have to satisfy himself that those houses that are vacant are not kept vacant purposely for the benefit of the owner. For instance, some owners keep their houses vacant. They purposely put up very high and impossible rents to keep them vacant in order to sell them with vacant possession so that they would get a higher price. Cases like that do not get a refund. I know that. I have seen some people who have claimed a refund, and I have seen them having to produce evidence of their attempt to get their house rented, and at a reasonable rate. So there is a precaution already existing. If it is in the Minister's mind that owners of houses could be working against the interest of the State for their own benefit, that is, by keeping houses vacant, then I would like to point out that that is not so. Precautionary steps are being taken by the assessors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a saying that when you scratch a Tartar you will still find a Tartar. Here on the question of taxes on property, we find the S.P.A. displaying the true nature of their political sympathies. Sir, to meet the point raised by the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Mountbatten that it is iniquitous to tax on unoccupied houses. The Member for Farrer Park says that, in the past, services were provided when houses were occupied, and when they were not occupied, municipal services were not enjoyed - services like water, light, gas and so on. Therefore, in such instances, when the house was vacant, there was no case for levying a rate. There may be a point to that if it is a matter purely of the Minister for Finance. But I would dispute his contention that the State does not provide any service whatsoever to the owners of vacant houses. For one thing, the police maintain law and order. Therefore, they safeguard the owners of such property from being plundered. But this is the point. Today we know that there is a shortage of housing. It is very difficult to get accommodation at reasonable rents. There is no excuse whatsoever for any large number of houses to go vacant for any long period of time. If that happens, it merely means that the land-owners are charging too high a rent. This being the case, it is only fair, taking the long-term view of their net income, that they should pay tax during the periods when their property is vacant. In the event that there is a slump - one does not know, of course, what the future governments would be then, of course, the situation may arise where there is a surplus of housing and many houses are vacant, although the rents charged are quite reasonable. In that event of course, there would be a case for reconsidering the position. But in the present circumstances, where there is a shortage of housing, it is absolutely scandalous that any large numbers of houses should be vacant. If the tax on vacant houses will have the effect of inducing landlords to lower their rent, then I think we will have achieved a very desirable social objective. As regards stopping private development, I think the Member for Farrer Park is fully aware that the large housing estates which have been built in the last few years have not been built to be let out; they have been built to be sold to individuals, very often on some instalment basis. So this question of the building estates being hard hit by this tax does not arise. The Member for Cairnhill says that I promised during my Budget statement that there would be no increase in the rates of tax in the rural areas. I said nothing of that sort. In fact, I went to some lengths to explain that the rates in the rural areas were low in the past for historical reasons, as Singapore was then developing and there was plenty of land then. But that is not the situation today. I clearly hinted that there would be slight increases in the rates of tax in the rural areas. As regards special treatment for industries, I think the Member for Cairnhill missed the point. It is not merely that prospective investors will get the benefit. The principal beneficiaries will be those who are already running factories in the rural areas today. They should be cushioned off from any increase in costs. Perhaps I should explain that in the rural areas, rates may have been increased anywhere between 5 possibly to 10 or 12 per cent on general properties, and we intend to exempt owners and operators of industrial establishments from these increases, so as not to increase their costs of production. The Member for Cairnhill also misunderstood the point about tax on vacant land. In the city area the tax is 36 per cent. The tax on vacant land at 36 per cent remains there. In the rural areas the tax was formerly 9 per cent, consisting of 5 per cent improvement rate and 4 per cent education rate. Therefore, what we are doing is not to reduce the tax on vacant land in the rural areas but to increase it. I hope I have resolved satisfactorily the various misunderstandings which have arisen over this Bill.

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.-[Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee.

3.29 p.m. Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Unless any Member wishes to speak on a particular clause, I propose to take the Bill Part by Part. Part II is clauses 3 to 5. Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Part III -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to come back to clause 7 again.

I will make a note of that. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7- Question proposed, "That clause 7 stand part of the Bill." 3.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to my question on the Second reading just now, the Minister said that the exemption to be granted on industrial premises does not mean only new industrial premises, but it is also meant to cover industrial premises already in existence. Sir, in the Budget speech, the Minister said that 1960 has been a very good year and everyone has been making money. Yet we now hear from him that capital has to get an extra inducement after making so much money, that they should not be asked to pay the same amount of Property Tax, but that in order for them to enjoy a very good year a little bit better, the Property Tax, as far as they are concerned, if they have industrial premises, will be reduced. Whereas against that, it is suggested that on dwelling houses in the rural areas the rates should be jacked up somewhat in order that, according to what the Minister has said, there can be a fairer rate of property taxation.

That does not call for any reply, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 8 to 64 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister for Finance said that as there is no visible sign (i.e., visible to him) of a slump at the moment in Singapore, he feels that it is only right that even those isolated properties-I think he would like to emphasize the words "isolated properties" - which cannot be let, should attract the property tax.

Order. I might remind the hon. Member that we are on the Third Reading under Standing Order 78 (1). Standing Order 78 (1) reads: `On the third reading of a Bill amendments may be proposed to the question "That the Bill be now read a third time" similar to those which may be proposed on second reading; but the debate shall be confined to the contents of the Bill and any reasoned amendment which raises matters not included in the Bill shall be out of order.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was merely trying to reply to something which the Minister for Finance had said. He made the promise that if a slump were to arise, he would think of introducing a new provision to the Bill.

Order. I can only allow the Member for Farrer Park to speak if he will specify under which clause he hopes to bring that subject in. If there is no clause, then, of course, he cannot speak.

Sir, under the Property Tax Bill, the Minister has wide powers to exempt properties from taxation. He may exempt or reduce. Sir, could I speak on that aspect of the matter? I think it is clause 7, Sir.

Can the Member for Farrer Park satisfy me that what he wishes to say is governed by clause 7?

The proviso to clause 7, Mr Speaker, Sir, which reads: `Provided that the Minister may by order published in the Gazette direct that the tax payable in respect of properties within any area or areas shall be at such a rate or rates being less than the rate prescribed by this section for such period or periods as may seem equitable to the Minister:'. "as may seem equitable to the Minister" - Mr Speaker, Sir, I am suggesting to you, Sir, that where properties cannot be let and the owner has honestly tried to let them, then equities do arise, and probably the Minister may then be able to proceed under that proviso.

Quite a very skilful manoeuvre! But I suppose the Member for Farrer Park can suggest that the rate should be .01 per cent or so?

Yes, Sir. Might I draw the attention of the Minister for Finance to section 110 of the Local Government Ordinance? Sir, the question of a refund even now is not a matter of right. It is a matter which the ratepayer has to satisfy the Chief Assessor in fact. The mere fact that the property is vacant does not of itself exempt it from rating. He has to satisfy the Assessor under section 110 (4). Sir, what I am suggesting to the Minister is this: that where an owner under the Local Government Ordinance could have satisfied the Assessor and thereby obtained an exemption from payment of assessment, in those circumstances, could I suggest to the Minister that equities would arise and he could then exercise his discretion?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I doubt very much whether clause 7 of this Bill empowers me to act in that way.

Yes, it does.

It does not. In any case, it is not intended to cover such cases. So I think the Member for Farrer Park was just taking this point to ventilate his grievances about the tax on vacant houses.

Have you a vacant house?

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the purpose of this Bill is to strengthen the hands of the Government in its determined efforts to combat illegal immigration into the State. Because of the open nature of its coast line, its comparative prosperity based on an entrepot economy and stable conditions and the proximity of numerous islands in its neighbourhood, the problem of preventing illegal immigration into Singapore is not an easy one. The problem has been accentuated by recent amendments to immigration laws, which have drastically reduced the number of immigrants into the country. Active measures have been taken to prevent such illegal immigration by the combined efforts of the Customs, Immigration, Marine Police and the M.R.N.V.R. These measures have produced results, but it is felt that the Government should be given more legal powers to have a better control of the situation and to deal more effectively not only with illegal immigrants who have entered the State, but also persons who assist in bringing them into Singapore. It is with these objects in mind that the Immigration (Amendment) Bill, 1960, is introduced. Clause 3 of the Bill now gives power to the Controller of Immigration to declare the presence of a person unlawful at any time if he is satisfied that the person is a prohibited immigrant or that any material statement in the application for his permit or certificate was false or misleading. Under the existing law, the Controller can only declare the presence of such a person unlawful within two years after his arrival. The effect of such a declaration is that the person will be liable for removal from the State by order of the Controller subject to appeal to the Minister. It is considered an unsatisfactory position whereby the Controller is only allowed to declare the presence of such a person unlawful within two years after arrival. The Controller should have discretionary power to remove him from the State at any time after his entry. Clause 4 of the Bill amends the Immigration Ordinance to authorise the seizure, detention and forfeiture of any vessel below 75 tons which has been used or is about to be used for the commission of an offence against the Immigration Ordinance or any regulations made thereunder. This amendment therefore covers the seizure and forfeiture of vessels used for the purpose of bringing in illegal immigrants. An order of forfeiture of vessels is only made by the court and shall be made if it is proved to its satisfaction that an offence against the Ordinance or any regulations made thereunder has been committed and that the vessel was used in the commission of such offence, notwithstanding that no person may have been convicted of such offence. It will be seen that forfeiture of a vessel now by virtue of the new definition "vessel" in clause 2 of the Bill includes everything found in it, and this amendment is made with a view to deterring the owners of small craft from engaging in the profitable business of smuggling in illegal immigrants into Singapore. The majority of these illegal immigrants enter Singapore by means of small craft from the adjacent islands. Under the existing law, a taikong of a small craft bringing in illegal immigrants can only be charged with the abetment of the commission of an offence and experience has shown that the punishment meted out to them is no deterrent to prevent them using the same boats again and again to bring in illegal immigrants. It is hoped that this amendment will be an effective deterrent. Clause 5 of the Bill amends the immigration Ordinance by putting the onus of proof on a person who is charged and who has no valid permit, certificate, pass or any other document or other evidence accepted by the Controller as evidence that he is a lawful resident, that he has entered or re-entered or remained in Singapore lawfully. Under the existing law, the Immigration Department has been handicapped in its work of prosecuting in court those illegal immigrants, who have already entered the State, because it has to prove that they have actually entered Singapore unlawfully and often unless these persons admit that they had entered illegally, it is not possible for the Immigration Department to prove that they had done so. Sir, the Government has given sufficient indication that it is doing and will do all it can legally, administratively and industrially and through its encouragement of trade expansion to secure the social and economic well-being of its citizens. This Bill, which is aimed at illegal immigration, is another additional means of protecting the economic interests of its citizens and safeguarding their employment opportunities. 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. -[Dr Lee Siew Choh]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation for this Bill and I beg to move, "That the Bill be now iead a Second time.' The Bill, as can be seen from the Comparative Table attached to the Bill, follows the pattern of the consolidation of the legislation relating to the administration of Muslim law in the States of the Federation of Malaya. The Bill provides for the establishment of a Majlis Ugama Islam to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on matters relating to the Muslim religion in Singapore. It establishes a general endowment fund to be kept by the Majlis Ugama Islam and this will enable the Majlis to deal with wakaf, nazr and other trusts which are intended for Muslim religious and charitable purposes. The endowments at present administered by the Muslim and Hindu Endowments Board will be transferred to this Majlis. The Majlis Ugama Islam is made the trustee of all Muslim religious trusts, including mosques and burial grounds, and it is also given the power, with the approval of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, to collect zakat and fitrah to be used for Muslim charitable purposes. 3.52 p.m.

The distinctive features of the Muslims Ordinance in Singapore and in particular the powers of the Shariah Court are retained in the Bill. The Shariah Court has been, I am glad to say, a successful experiment in Singapore and the Bill seeks to retain and in certain aspects to extend the powers of the Shariah Court. The Bill also does not follow the legislation in the Malay states of the Federation in the punishment of Muslim offences. Provision has been made for the punishment of cohabitation outside marriage and enticing an unmarried woman from her wali as it is considered that these provisions are necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of the Bill relating to the solemnization and registration of Muslim marriages. In its broader aspects, Sir, the Bill aims at re-organising the administration of the Muslim law and Muslim religion in Singapore. The mosque will be the centre of Muslim activity in the various parts of Singapore. There will be constituted a mosque area, daerah masjid, around the mosque and the Muslims living in the area will be given an opportunity to take part in the administration of the mosque and its activities. The Imam of the mosque will be paid by the Majlis Ugama Islam, and if he is suitably qualified, he will be appointed the Naib Kathi to solemnize and register Muslim marriages in the mosque area, to register consent divorces, and he will also be appointed the Collector for the purpose of collecting zakat and fitrah. The Majlis itself, although it will be the nominal trustee and will supervise all Muslim religious trusts, will appoint local trustees for such religious trusts. Although the Bill provides that notwithstanding any provision in any written law, instrument or declaration, the Majlis shall be the sole trustee of all religious trusts, in practice, the day-to-day administration of such trusts will be left to the trustees, whether appointed by the instrument or declaration or by the Majlis. The central organisation for the solemnization and registration of Muslim marriages and divorces will remain with the Shariah Court and the Kathis. It is proposed that the post of Chief Kathi be abolished and that there should be, in the first instance, two Kathis to deal with marriages where the woman to be wedded has no wali and where the wali refuses to give his consent to the marriage, and with marriages where the man to be married already has a wife or wives living. Other marriages may be solemnized and registered in the mosque area where the bride resides by the Naib Kathi of the mosque area. The Naib Kathis will not be paid by the Government but will be entitled to retain the prescribed fees for the solemnization and registration of the marriage. The Shariah Court will continue to deal with all cases of disputed applications for divorce. Divorces by consent will be registered by a Kathi or a Naib Kathi. As it is intended that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, I do not propose to deal with the other detailed provisions of the Bill at this stage. I would add, Sir, that the Bill has been considered in detail by the Muslim Advisory Board and that it has been approved by this Board. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill before us, "The Administration of Muslim Law Ordinance" is a hybrid one and the clauses have, in some instances, been taken out in toto from the Muslim Law Enactments of Selangor, Pahang and Penang. For this reason, Sir, if not for any other, I welcome the Minister's proposal to commit the Bill to a Select Committee. Sir, when the first Muslims Ordinance, 1880, was introduced in Singapore, the lawmakers then had in mind not so much the desire to control the way of life as a whole of the Muslims of Singapore, hut rather the object was to lay down certain principles of Islamic law which had been abused by some sections of the Muslim population and which conflicted with the non-theocratic laws of the State. In fact, the provisions of the first Muslims Ordinance never went beyond that. The intention was specific and to the point where, in effect, it became merely an accessory to the existing laws of the country, although it was part and parcel of the Statute Book. Amendments were made to the Ordinance from time to time, but even so the guiding principle was never forgotten. The present Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, goes beyond the original Muslims Ordinance, 1880, and the Muslims Ordinance, 1957, both of which, if I may say again, tended to accord certain principles of the Muslim law with the existing civil laws of the State. For my part, I welcome these new additions for the effect it would have in regularising the code of conduct of certain aspects of Muslim law. But, Sir, what we agree to do or not to do in this Assembly is not enough if we do not carry the support of the people Outside. Doubts have been raised by Muslim scholars as to whether this Assembly can introduce such a Bill. And here, Sir, the question is not the academic question, similar to the one we debated not so long ago, of whether this Assembly is competent to debate the issue under our Standing Orders, but rather whether in a non-secular State like Singapore, Islamic laws can be enacted to govern Muslims in their way of life. Some Muslim theologians hold the view that under Islamic law only a Muslim Government can enforce the laws of the Koran, like the Government of the Federation of Malaya whose State religion is Islam. Now, Sir, before I go any further, I would like to stress for the purpose of clarification to this Assembly and also to the Press - The Malay Press in particular - that I am not here giving my views on the Islamic law but rather expressing the views of Muslim religious leaders outside this Assembly. 4.00 p.m. Mr Deputy Speaker, there is then again another group of Muslims who contend that the provisions contained in this Bill are not enough to cover all aspects of Islamic law, even to the extent of gaoling a Muslim for non-observance of his daily prayers and fast, both of which to a Muslim and under Islamic laws are the pillars and two of the five fundamentals upon which Islamic religion stands. Sir, these are some of the thoughts now occupying the minds of some, if not all, religious leaders since this Bill was published. I would like now, Sir, to touch on some aspects of the Bill which I feel require re-thinking. The most important parts of the Bill, as I see it, are Parts IV (dealing with financial problems), V (Mosques and Religious Schools), and IX (Offences). Under clause 59, a General Endowment Fund will be established into which all zakat and fitrah collected by the collectors will be paid. Clause 73 enables the Majlis, with the approval of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, to make rules "to prescribe from time to time the amount of zakat and fitrah to be paid by all Muslims in Singapore", and also the distribution of the zakat and fitrah to those eligible. Here, Mr Deputy Speaker, arise two points. The first is the determination by the Majlis of the amount of zakat and fitrah. Now, how and in what manner, and by what means, and by what yardstick is the Majlis to determine the amount? Is this going to be another Assessment Department of the Income Tax Office? For all I know, it could be an arbitrary decision depending upon the whim and fancy of the members of the Majlis. Fitrah, of course, is not so difficult since the calculation is based upon a flat amount, whatever the means of the person concerned, that is to say, those who are not exempted. But when it comes to zakat, the question of determining a person's property upon which a tithe of 2½ per cent will be imposed is a highly complex operation. The second point is the method of distribution and entitlement thereof. In Singapore today, Sir, we have public assistance by the Social Welfare Department, which pays a mere subsistence allowance to those unemployed. Under Muslim law, the poor and the needy will be amongst those first eligible for the distribution of zakat and fitrah, and these people will probably be the same people who are also eligible for public assistance. Now, Sir, is it the Government's intention, once the Bill becomes law, to withdraw public assistance from those who are eligible for zakat and fitrah? It may well be that the individual shares of zakat and fitrah could amount to more than the pittance they get from public assistance. I hope it is not going to be so. Actually, Sir, we Muslims in Singapore (at least the good Muslims) pay two types of what we may call taxes - one to the Government in all forms, and the other in the form of zakat and fitrah. I now come to clause 77 which prohibits a person from erecting a mosque, without the approval of the Majlis. Sir, this raises a very serious question. Since the time of the Prophet, there has been, to my knowledge, no religious restriction on the building of a mosque. I know this provision is taken from the Selangor and Penang Muslim enactments. But I would like to ask the Minister: why introduce it here? Then we come to the Offences section which is in Part IX. Part IX begins with clause 126 which reads: `Save as is otherwise in this Ordinance expressly provided this Part of this Ordinance shall only apply to Muslims.' I repeat, Sir, "shall only apply to Muslims." Further on, under the same Part, clause 131 is on cohabitation Outside marriage. This clause states that any man or woman who cohabits outside marriage shall be guilty of an offence and shall be punishable to a fine not exceeding $500 or for a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or to both. Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, this means that if you (anonymously) were to cohabit with a Muslim woman outside marriage, the Muslim woman can be sentenced to six months' imprisonment and to a fine of $500, but you will go scot-free. That is what this clause means. Where is the equality and justice, Sir? My information is that under Muslim law both should be punished. I would seriously suggest, Sir, to the Government that this clause should be totally deleted. In fact, Sir, even in the Malay States, i.e. in the Federation of Malaya, where the State religion is Islam, there is no provision of this nature in the Muslim enactments. Finally, Sir, I know that both the Minister and the State Advocate-General have put in hours of work in compiling the Bill. I hope their efforts have not been wasted, but I would appeal to the Government, on such a highly controversial subject, that it would be better to go slow on the Bill and not to rush it even in Select Committee. No one. Sir, least of all myself, can speak with any authority on the Muslim religion. We have to seek outside advice, and the Select Committee is the best place for it. I would also appeal to all concerned that in moulding this Bill into its final form, both sides of this House should work as a team and party politics should not be brought in, either into this Assembly or into the Select Committee. In this connection, Sir, on a parting word of advice to the Minister, I would advise him to print as many copies as possible of the Malay version of this Bill for distribution to Muslim leaders and organisations throughout Singapore long before the Select Committee begins its deliberations. 4.08 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Administration of Muslim Law Bill, which has been tabled by the Minister for Labour and Law today, is a Bill which could, be described as creating a new chapter in the history of Singapore consonant with the Constitution of Singapore, which enunciates the protection and safeguard of the islamic religion of the Malays and Islamic people of Singapore. I do not wish to dwell at length on this point because this Bill was actually promulgated on the advice of many religious experts, and it has received the blessing of the Muslim Advisory Board, and their views and findings have been accepted. On the subject of zakat, we are adhering to the school of thought called Shafei. On the distribution of the zakat, it will be distributed according to the provisos contained in the Muslims Ordinance. For instance, in the Muslims Ordinance the tithe is divided into eight persons because two of these conditions are absent in this law, and another one, the ibni sabil which is non-existant in this country. There are only six left. So only those people who qualify under those six conditions are eligible. There should be no controversy arising because there is provision for the mufti to give it his ruling. The second point is the question of building mosques. This has never happened, but according to the Shafei school of thought, if there are two mosques in the same area, then they should set different times of prayer. This is merely to prevent two mosques in the same kampong from being erected which will eventually result in misunderstanding among the people, but if it happens, as it does happen because of certain misunderstandings, a group decides to erect a mosque and then not far away, say, 10 feet, there is another surau built, then it is with this in view that we have made provisions to restrict the building of mosques. Similarly, on the offences, we merely punish people of Islamic faith who commit the offences. There are other religions where, when you are in love with each other, no problem arises; it is not an offence. But in Islamic law, the marriage should be solemnized before a priest or imam and witnessed by witnesses. So it is necessary that the Muslim who commits the offence should be punished. However if a free thinker cohabits with a woman, that is another matter. On this aspect of the Bill, too, this has been discussed at great length by the religious leaders. However, as a result of the wise decision of the Minister for Law to commit the Bill to a Select Committee, it is hoped that many more religious leaders who are experts on Muslim law will come forward to give their views and opinions so that the incidents that took place with regard to the Muslims Ordinance will not happen again. 4.15 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, as a Muslim, I support this Bill in principle. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an important Bill as it affects the Muslim community in Singapore and because the powers therein are wide, and are more closely related to the Muslim people in Singapore. I am of the opinion that it is not for me to discuss this Bill. I am not competent to do so. It requires religious experts to be able to discuss this Bill. However, as my responsibility in this Assembly is to draft an Ordinance in the interest of the State of Singapore, I will give this Bill my consideration and careful study. However, as stated by the Member for Geylang Serai just now, as this Bill should be given thorough consideration by the whole Muslim community, it is proper, therefore, that it should be translated into Malay and copies of it distributed to all Muslim organisations. Just now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development said that the Administration of Muslim Law Bill did not receive the response as should be expected from the religious experts. The reason why no response was forthcoming was that they were not able to understand the provisions of the Bill. Moreover, even those who have a knowledge of the Muslim religion do not have a proper knowledge of the English language. So I support the suggestion by the Member for Geylang Serai that the Bill be translated into Malay and copies of it distributed to the various Muslim organisations. Let us not accept this Bill just because it has been approved by the Muslim Advisory Board. It is not enough, because I know that although the Muslim Advisory Board is the body to advise the Government on religious matters, it does not reflect public opinion. So at the suggestion of the Minister for Labour and Law himself to commit the Bill to a Select Committee, which is a commendable step, I welcome this Bill in the hope that it will be enforced in the interest of the Muslim people in Singapore. Another point which I would like to remind the Government about is that the Bill can be modified to fit in with our wishes but the question of enforcement is a matter which must be given careful thought. From the provisions of this Bill, I think powers have been vested in the Majlis Ugama Islam which will issue rulings, administer finances and decide on administrative matters concerning the erection of religious schools and so on. Members of the Majlis Ugama Islam will be nominated by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I only wish to remind that this Board should not be a place where people merely wish to be nominated for the sake of being nominated. It may well be that although they are of the opinion that a certain matter is contradictory to the Muslim law, they, as nominated members, may not dare to voice their opinion openly. Because they are nominated members, therefore, their interest is in being members of the Board and nothing else. What we hope is that the members of this Board will serve on the Board to discharge truly their responsibility towards the religion of Islam. One point which impresses me, Mr Deputy Speaker, is when the Parliamentary Secretary stated that when people cohabit, the punishment is imposed only on the Islamic people. According to the Parliamentary Secretary, this is because the Islamic man has committed the offence. If considered carefully, he said originally that the aim of the Bill was to abide by the provisions of the Constitution. It is expected that the Constitution will safeguard the provisions of the Islamic law. We should be able to guide the people of Islam along the right Islamic path for the reason that the Islamic law cannot be applied to non-Muslims. So I strongly urge this matter to be carefully considered in the Select Committee.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. -[Mr Byrne].

Order for Second Reading read. 4.26 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the provisions of the Pineapple Industry Ordinance so as to give legal effect to Government's policy for the Malayan Pineapple industry contained in Command Paper No. 24 of 1960 which was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on the 25th October, 1960. Corresponding legislation has been passed by the Federation House of Representatives on the 30th November, 1960. The present Malayan Pineapple Industry Board, which consists of seventeen members, has been found to be too unwieldy, and clause 2 reconstitutes the Board. The present functions of the Board are not precisely set out and have been re-drafted in clause 4. It is considered that there is no room in the Board for two full-time senior Administrative Officers, and clause 5 abolishes the statutory post of Chief Executive Officer and transfer to the Board the power to appoint such staff as it considers necessary. For flexibility and efficiency, the statutory Executive Committee is also abolished and its powers transferred to the Board under clause 6. 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 Low Por Tuck]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.30 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation to proceed with this Bill. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The object of this Bill is to give effect to the proposal to raise the rate of tax on private lotteries which I mentioned in my Budget speech. At present, promoters of private lotteries pay a tax of 20 per cent on their gross receipts and operators of fruit machines pay 20 per cent on 137½ per cent of their net takings. For reasons which I have fully explained in my Budget statement, Government considers it just and proper that the rates of tax be increased in respect of these from 20 per cent to 30 per cent. 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. -[Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second read. 4.35 p.m.

Mr Deputy, Speaker, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation to proceed with this Bill. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the object of this Bill is to give effect to the changes in the rate of assessment on large rubber holdings which I announced in my Budget Speech on the 29th of November. At present, when the price of rubber is under 20 cents per pound, the estate owner pays 1 per cent of the price as assessment. The maximum rate payable at present is 3¼ per cent and this applies only when the price exceeds 35 cents. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, you will see that at the present price of about 85 cents per pound, an estate owner pays only 2½ cents per pound. This is considerably lower than the export duty on rubber in the Federation. When the price of rubber moves upwards, this disparity becomes even greater. There is no valid justification for this anomaly and the scale which is set out in clause 3 of the Bill goes some way to reducing this disparity. There is another matter which I wish to draw attention to. This is that land in Singapore could be put to better use than for rubber plantations, and so I propose, as a measure to discourage the alienation of land for rubber, to impose a quarterly rate of $8.75 per acre on land under immature rubber or where the trees have been abandoned. The necessary provisions are contained in clause 3, paragraph (a) and clause 4 of the Bill, while clause 6 provides for the necessary returns to be made by estate owners to the tax department. 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. -[Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee.

4.41 p.m. Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 -

Mr Kandasamy,. I beg to move, In page 2, to leave out lines 11 to 17 inclusive and insert- `"Provided that in respect of any such rubber estate or part thereof in which no rubber trees are tapped or in which the rubber trees are not tapped to the satisfaction of the Comptroller the owner thereof shall pay to the Comptroller a rate of eight dollars and seventy-five cents per acre or part of an acre in respect of such quarter in addition to the rate ascertained in the manner hereafter provided."; and'. The reason for amending the proviso in clause 3 is to close up the loopholes which the original proviso has. Under the original proviso, the owner of a rubber estate could evade tax by tapping trees once or twice a quarter. They would then have to pay the rate for the rubber produced, and as this would be very little, the assessment would be small. The new proviso therefore allows the Comptroller to require payment of the rate for untapped trees if he is not satisfied that the yield is economic. Amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 -

Mr Kandasamy, Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, to leave out lines 29 to 34 inclusive and insert- `"Provided that in respect of any such rubber estate or part thereof in which no rubber trees are tapped or in which the rubber trees are not tapped to the satisfaction of the Comptroller the owner thereof shall pay to the Comptroller a rate of eight dollars and seventy-five cents per acre or part of an acre in respect of such quarter in addition to the rate ascertained in the manner hereafter provided.".'. Sir, this is an identical amendment with the previous one, and the reasons are the same. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 5 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.45 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that this Bill be proceeded with. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the object of this Bill is to give effect to the proposals to reduce the rate of personal allowances on income tax and to provide for an "earned income relief" which I outlined in the Budget Statement.

The definition of "earned income" for the purposes of the new tax relief is provided in clause 2 of the Bill. The proposed reductions in the rates of relief are contained in clause 3. The allowances will be reduced to $2,000 for an individual and $1,000 for his wife. These deductions will bring our income tax rates closer to those of the Federation. The impact of these reductions is diminished by the new "earned income relief" which is provided under the same clause of the Bill, and is set at 20 per cent of earned income subject to a limit of $1,000. The average worker will hardly be affected by these changes in the tax structure, because the 20,000 or so new tax payers will only have to pay a total of $750,000 per annum or an average of $37 each per year. The maximum amount any new taxpayer will have to pay is $20 a year if he is a bachelor and $50 a year if he is married without children. The maximum payable by any new taxpayer with three children will be $12.50 a year. I am sure, Sir, that Members will agree that this is neither iniquitous nor a hardship on the lower income groups. As I have said previously, the average family in Singapore does not pay income tax until their earnings from work reaches the region of $500 per month, even with the proposed reductions of personal allowances. It is relevant also to note that for a family of five with an income of less than $10,000, or for a married couple without children, with an income of less than $9,000 or for a bachelor with an income of less than $8,000, the tax in Singapore is lower than the tax in the Federation. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, it cannot be said that our tax rates are onerous. 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.-[Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

4.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation and move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), resolves that the Second Schedule to the said Ordinance be varied by substituting therefor the following Schedule with effect from the 1st day of January, 1961:- SECOND SCHEDULE (Section 42) Chargeable Income $ Rate of Tax per cent For every dollar of the first 1,500 5 " " " " " next 500 6 " " " " " " 1,000 7 " " " " " " 1,000 8 " " " " " " 1,000 10 " " " " " " 2,000 12 " " " " " " 3,000 15 " " " " " " 5,000 18 " " " " " " 10,000 25 " " " " " " 10,000 30 " " " " " " 15,000 40 " " " " " " 50,000 50 " " " exceeding 100,000 55 Sir, the object of this motion is to give effect to the proposal to raise the maximum rate of income tax from 50 to 55 per cent on income above $100,000 a year, as announced earlier in my Budget Statement on 29th November, 1960. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), resolves that the Second Schedule to the said Ordinance be varied by substituting therefor the following Schedule with effect from the 1st day of January, 1961: - SECOND SCHEDULE (Section 42) Chargeable Income $ Rate of Tax per cent For every dollar of the first 1,500 5 " " " " " next 500 6 " " " " " " 1,000 7 " " " " " " 1,000 8 " " " " " " 1,000 10 " " " " " " 2,000 12 " " " " " " 3,000 15 " " " " " " 5,000 18 " " " " " " 10,000 25 " " " " " " 15,000 40 " " " " " " 50,000 50 " " " exceeding 100,000 55

4.52 p.m. The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly adopts the State Marine Ensign as described and shown in Paper Misc. 6 of 1960. Sir, the House is aware that Singapore is the fifth largest port in the world. Every day, a large number of vessels enter port and leave the harbour. It is an international custom for all vessels to fly a flag of that State which it is visiting. It is desirable, therefore, that in Singapore we should have the possibility of distinguishing vessels which are owned by the Singapore Government from visiting vessels and other trading vessels which may be registered in Singapore. The Singapore Marine Ensign will be flown by all marine craft in the service of the Government or a statutory board, say, for example, when the Port Authority is formed, light-houses, signal stations, piers and wharves owned or operated by the Government or statutory boards. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly adopts the State Marine Ensign as described and shown in Paper Misc. 6 of 1960.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question -[19th December, 1960]: "That this House condemns the Member for Hong Lim for his dishonourable conduct unbecoming of an elected representative of the people in that he repeatedly used his privilege in this Assembly as a cloak for spreading malicious falsehoods to unjustly injure innocent persons both inside and outside this Assembly; that he be suspended from the service of this Assembly until such time as (i) he apologises to this Assembly for his dishonourable conduct; (ii) he unreservedly withdraws his unfounded allegations against the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law; and (iii) he assures the Assembly that he will not persist in abusing his privilege in this Assembly by uttering malicious falsehoods, unless he be prepared when challenged to repeat outside the Assembly the charges he makes in the Assembly."-(The Deputy Prime Minister). 4.55 p.m. The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the debate on the motion standing in my name be adjourned sine die. Sir, six days ago, the former Member for Hong Lim stated that he would substantiate all the things he had said. This was reported in page 44 of your unrevised transcript of proceedings on that day. At that time, he begged for time to collect more facts so that he could prepare his case. This is quoted on page 45 of the unrevised transcript. He wanted an adjournment to give him a chance to delve further into the matter. I was not in the Chamber, Mr Speaker, this afternoon when you made your announcement that the former Member for Hong Lim, Mr Ong Eng Guan, tendered his resignation to you at 2.13 p.m. today. This last-minute reversal of stand, after stating explicitly that he intended to substantiate charges which we believe to be false, speaks for itself. I had expected him, honour bound, to pursue the allegations he had made in this House. However, in view of the fact that he has changed his mind 17 minutes before the sitting of this Assembly, I have to move that the motion that is before the House should be adjourned sine die. The purpose of this adjournment sine die is that since Mr Ong Eng Guan, the man who has made the allegations, is no longer a Member of this House, it will be better to have the allegations investigated and conducted outside this Chamber. It is intended, therefore, to set up a Commission of Inquiry with a High Court Judge as Commissioner to investigate the truth of the allegations that have been made against two Ministers. It is our hope that the Commission will commence its hearing and complete its findings as soon as possible so that they could be tabled in this House. Thereupon, I shall ask for this motion to be put back on the Order Paper for debate. After the Inquiry Report has been tabled in this House, steps will be taken to hold a by-election in the constituency of Hong Lim. Sir, I beg to move.

The Question is really in two parts. The Question is, "That the debate be now adjourned."

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the debate be now adjourned.

Resumption of debate, what day?

Sine die.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn to 11th January, 1961."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at One Minute to Five o'clock p.m. to Wednesday, 11th January, 1961.