Hansard, 1962-03-26

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Mr David Marshall (Anson) - from 19th to 31st March, 1962. Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang), Minister for Labour - from 13th to 31st March, 1962.

"to amend the Civil Law Ordinance (Chapter 24 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Tuesday, 17th April, 1962, and to be printed.

"to amend the Motor Vehicles (Third-party Risks and Compensation) Ordinance, 1960 (No. 1 of 1960)", presented by the Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Tuesday, 17th April, 1962, and to be printed.

"to amend the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance (Chapter 188 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Tuesday, 17th April, 1962, and to be printed.

"to provide for the establishment of a Tariff Advisory Commission and for matters incidental thereto", presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Tuesday, 17th April, 1962, and to be printed.

"to amend the Customs Ordinance, 1960 (No. 44 of 1960)", presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): read the First time, to be read a Second time on 7'uesday, 17th April, 1962, and to be printed.

2.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Life Assurance Companies (Compulsory Liquidation) Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Please proceed.

Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to make further provision for the regulation of lire assurance business, to provide for the compulsory winding-up of certain companies carrying on life assurance business and to amend the Life Assurance Companies Ordinance (Chapter 178 of the Revised Edition)." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading. What day?

Immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill

Are typed copies of the Bill available for the use of Members? Dr Goh Keng Swee indicated assent. Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

Order. I have to draw attention to the statement of expenditure of public money for this proposed Bill, which reads: 'This Bill will involve the Government in a financial expenditure of about $50,000.' I take it the Minister will signify the recommendation of the Yang di Pertuan Negara that the Bill be proceeded with when we come to the Second reading? Dr Goh Keng Swee indicated assent.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.41 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." There are at present 14 harbour pilots who are self-employed. Arrangements are now being made for pilotage to be taken over by a proposed new Port Authority. The target date for this takeover is 1st January, 1963. In order to maintain an efficient service when the pilots are employed by the Port Authority, it is estimated that it will be necessary to employ 35 pilots. The Singapore Harbour Board, as the forerunner of the proposed Port Authority, has since October last year recruited and trained 17 pilots, of whom 14 have already been licensed by the Pilot Board. These pilots are directly employed by the Harbour Board, and by the time of the takeover, all pilots, including those pilots at present self-employed and who elect to remain in service, will be in the employ of the Harbour Board or the Port Authority. Part X of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance, which deals with pilotage, does not provide for any limitation of liability for loss or damage occasioned by any act or default of a pilot whilst engaged in his duties; neither does the Ordinance provide protection front liability for the pilot's employment. Now that the Singapore Harbour Board is employing pilots, it is necessary to amend the Merchant Shipping Ordinance to protect the Harbour Board and the pilots it employs from claims for damages. In other parts of the world, pilotage authorities employing pilots are covered either by being able to limit their liability or by exempting themselves of any liability, in the United Kingdom, this liability is limited to £100 multiplied by the number of pilots in the pilotage district. The Bombay Port Trust is not liable to pay any damages. The pilots in the United Kingdom are enabled by legislation to limit their personal liability to £100 plus the pilotage fee for the ship involved. The Bill is therefore designed to enable a harbour pilot to put up a bond of $1,000 and his personal liability shall be limited to that amount and the amount payable to him for piloting the vessel. This Bill also provides that general employers, such as the Harbour Board at present, shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused by a pilot. 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 Toh Chin Chye]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." It will be recalled that in November 1960, the Government announced its intention to acquire the Singapore assets of Cable & Wireless Ltd, when the Company's licenses expire, on 31st December, 1962, and to merge these assets with those of the Telecommunications Department to form a statutory telecommunications board, at the same time allowing Cable & Wireless Ltd, to retain an interest in the new board. The internal and external communications existing in the State of Singapore are held under the control of three separate organisations, namely, the Telecommunications Department, Cable & Wireless Ltd, and the Singapore Telephone Board. The Telecommunications Department provides telecommunication services for the public, including commercial organisations, and for Government or quasi-Government organisations. The Singapore Telephone Board operates and maintains the State's internal telephone system, and Cable & Wireless Ltd, operate and maintain a submarine cable and radio circuits associated with the intra-Commonwealth telegraph service. Cable & Wireless Ltd, operate in Singapore under the following three licenses all of which are due to expire on 31st December, 1962:-

Sir, we are generally in favour of the principles outlined in the Bill except in one respect. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that in regard to the transfer of the present employees of Cable & Wireless Ltd, to the Government service there might be some difficulty over the terms of service and salary scales. Sir, the wording of clause 9 gives rise to such fears because -

Order. I think the hon. Member has not noticed that a notice of amendment has been given in respect of clause 9 and I have received information that the Member for Anson has authorised the Member for Thomson to move that amendment. I suggest that the hon. Member's remarks would be better reserved for Committee.

Sir, I reserve my remarks for discussion on that clause. Generally, may I suggest that when it comes to any possible differences of opinion, the trade unions concerned be consulted and that no unilateral decision be imposed because in the interest of Singapore we would rather see disputes settled amicably than through strike action.

Dr Toh, in reply?

No, Sir.

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 Toh Chin Chye]. Bill considered in Committee.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 7, line 19, to leave out "as near as may be to" and insert "no less favourable than". Sir, there is a certain amount of apprehension among the staff concerned about the way this clause has been worded. I think it is only proper that the Government should give an undertaking that no one will suffer a loss as a result of this transfer. Sir, "as near as may be to those they had previously enjoyed" does not necessarily mean that the new terms are going to be even identical. I believe it is grossly unfair to tell these employees that they have no choice but to be transferred, and that too on terms which may be less favourable. I submit that "as near as may be" is frightfully vague. I am of the opinion that no locally engaged officer should have his remuneration or other terms changed to his disadvantage by a transfer of this nature. I do not know whether the intention of Government is to effect comparable terms, but clause 9 as it stands now gives ample room for one to believe that locally engaged staff will have their terms changed to their disadvantage on becoming employees of the Board. 3.00 p.m. Sir, the purpose of this amendment is to safeguard the interests of the employees to ensure that they will incur no loss. I hope the Government appreciates the principle in effecting transfers of this nature. I believe it has an obligation to guarantee locally engaged staff that they shall be transferred to the Board only on terms that will not be less favourable than those which are in force at the moment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we support the amendment because, as the clause stands, there is not only room for doubt but a possibility for those who are trying to adjust the salaries to fix lower salaries than those prevailing at the moment. "as near as may be", Sir, may mean not up to or beyond, but under. Now, people framing salary scales are very fond of round figures and naturally when, in round figures, the salary of the present employee goes down, no doubt from the point of view of the man who wants tidy figures it looks fine, but from the point of view of the employee he feels that he has been given a bad turn. I am sure the amount involved is so small that the Government, desiring to have the goodwill of the workers, will not in any way make them feel that they have been penalised by the transfer. I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister, when he says that in the transfer the present employees should not suffer, surely would be glad to accept this amendment.

Mr Speaker, I must explain why the words "no less favourable than" have been left out of this clause and replaced by "as near as may be to". In the original draft of the Bill, I myself suggested that the phrase "no less favourable than" be used in the clause. Subsequently the Government side had several discussions with Cable & Wireless Ltd, and we discovered that if the words "no less favourable than" were used, in effect the new statutory Board would be placed in a predicament, for the reason that you would have a salary scale for Government employees who are transferred to the new Board and another salary scale for Cable & Wireless employees transferred to the new Board, and a third salary scale for new employees. Now, for any statutory Board or any single employer to have three different rates of pay for its employees is obviously not feasible. That is exactly what the Board would be landed with if the words "no less favourable than" were used in clause 9. Therefore, it is obvious that a compromise has to be achieved and this compromise is attained by inserting the words "as near as may be". I give the undertaking that discussions with the staff of both the Government Telecommunications Department and the staff of Cable & Wireless Ltd, will be held so that the terms arrived at for transfer will be to the satisfaction of all parties. It is not the intention of this clause to do the workers in. Far from it. In fact, may I point out that when the Oriental Telephone & Electric Co. Ltd, was converted into a statutory Board, the Singapore Telephone Board, the terms of transfer of the staff of this Company to the Telephone Board were worded similarly - "shall be deemed to be an officer of the Board at the same rate of pay and as near as may be on the same conditions as those on which he was employed by the Company"? Now in the case of the transfer of personnel from the O.T.E.C. to the Singapore Telephone Board, the exercise is relatively simple because it is just merely transferring bodies from one department to a new department. In other words, it is just a question of change of name. But in the formation of the Telecommunications Board, we have an exercise where staff from two different bodies are being integrated and unfortunately the salary scales for these two departments vary - they are not exactly equal - and therefore a happy mean will have to be struck.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in respect of drafting, I think the Member for Thomson has failed to read on from where he left off in this clause. Clause 9 states that the employees who are transferred "shall be transferred to the service of the Board on terms as near as may be to those they had previously enjoyed and such terms, which shall be determined by the Board, shall take into account salaries and conditions of service enjoyed by such officers when in the employ of the Government or of the Company." So that, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Board will be under an obligation to take into account the salaries enjoyed by the officers in Government at the time of their transfer.

Sir, I am not a lawyer but I understand that cases have failed because of some technicality. Now, the wording to anybody here is clear, that "as near as may be" may be as near from the bottom or as near from the top. And it can be interpreted by whoever draws up the salary scales that it does not preclude that "being as near from the bottom" means less. No doubt the Deputy Prime Minister has given us an assurance, but the interpretation of the clause as it stands does not preclude the wrong interpretation later on. I wonder how he is going to get over that. If he accepts the amendment proposed here, it will satisfy his own principle and preclude any possible misinterpretation.

Sir, the Member for Tanglin is now embarking on a new career in his political life. He may be the champion of workers and trade unions, and may I wish him all success in his rather belated start -

Therefore "you are a Communist".

- in this field of action. Now, obviously he has not got a good start because in dealing with this question of future terms and conditions of service of the Board, he starts off with something that the Government is out to do the workers in, that if we want to equate it, we would not equate it by taking all the terms together but what we want to do is to pay the chap just a few dollars less than what he is entitled to get. I mean this is really too childish an approach. Let us imagine that it is stated that the staff transferred to the Board shall receive conditions of service no less favourable than they are now getting. Let us look at the implications of that sort of undertaking. Now, some of these persons are members of the Telecommunications Department, Divisions I, II, III and so on. One of the purposes of office in Government is entitlement to holiday bungalows at low cost. If you want to say no less favourable terms than what they are enjoying, then the Board would be required to put up holiday bungalows on a scale and at places no less lavish than those which the Government is providing. Then there are other conditions such as leave, pension rights, and so on. It is not possible in respect of each and every item to give the employees who are to be transferred treatment no less favourable than what they are getting now without the Board being committed to a tremendous amount of capital expenditure. And not only that. The staff of Cable & Wireless Ltd, may be enjoying certain perquisites which the Government officers do not get and which the Government are required, after the transfer, to give to their staff. If you give to one section of the staff, you must give to everybody. So the test to be applied whether or not fair play has been done is whether taking overall conditions of service justice has not been done. I say it is quite unnecessary for Members of the Opposition to pretend that the Government is out to do the workers in. I may perhaps briefly refer to another integration exercise, i.e., the integration of the City Council staff into the Government service. We did give an undertaking that they will be transferred on terms no less favourable than what they were then enjoying. And this has meant, in practice, that the former City Council staff remain exactly on their old salary scales, on their old terms of service, and integration is only an organisational one - in the sense that they are put into some positions in the hierarchy of Ministries. But complete integration, i.e., in the sense of having one identical salary scale for all officers whether they were originally in the Government or in the City Council, is not possible. The City Council was formerly a Government department, and although there were divergences of working conditions between the City Council and the Government, they were not of such a major order of magnitude as to create insoluble problems. But in the case of a private company - although I have not examined in detail the working conditions in both Cable and Wireless Ltd, and the Telecommunications Department - I say it would be quite impossible in respect of each and every grade of staff to have treatment no less favourable than what they are getting now. All that we can aim for is that, taking all conditions of service together, they get fair treatment. More than this, I think, we cannot guarantee them. But less than this, we in the Government can assure that they will not get.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot understand why the Minister should say that the Opposition pretends that the Government is out to do damage. The Opposition is not pretending. The Opposition knows for a fact that the Government has done damage to its civil servants, and, therefore, the Opposition does not rely on any assurance given by the Government in regard to any dealing by the Government of any employee. Sir, it is a very important point in trade unionism that, in any transfer from one service to another, the conditions of service shall be no less favourable. Surely, if the Government says that we are pretending that it is out to do damage and that it sincerely does not want to do damage, then why all this opposition to this amendment, which only means that the terms and conditions of service shall be no less favourable than what they have had before? The Minister says that it is not possible for employees in the Government to continue to receive privileges of bungalow facilities and what not, and that in the case of the Cable and Wireless employees, there might be employees who are being given certain conditions of service which may not be acceptable to the Government. But the Minister for Health and Law has clearly pointed out that in so far as their own conditions of employment are concerned, it shall be as near as may be. And we only say that if there is no intention on the part of Government to do damage, then surely the Government should accept that the transfer shall be on terms "no less favourable than".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to say a few words. First of all, I think the Minister for Health and Law has suggested that I have not read the other parts of the clause. Sir, I assure him that I have read the other parts of the clause. What it says here is that the Board shall take into account the salaries for determining the new terms. Sir, that does not necessarily mean again, to say the least of it, that the new salaries and new terms are going to be identical. Sir, all that the Deputy Prime Minister said was that because there are more than two salary scales at the moment, it may be difficult to work out an arrangement whereby the terms may not be less favourable. Sir, I frankly do not see any difficulty in this. I am sure Government Members will agree that that has happened in other industries and in other establishments in the past. Whether there is one salary scale, two salary scales or three salary scales, if we adopt the principle of converting so that no one receives terms which are less favourable than the old terms, we can easily fuse this into one common salary structure. I am not saying that the Government is definitely going to do it to the workers. What I am saying is that it should provide safeguards to say that the salaries and other terms of service of the locally engaged staff - I am not concerned about expatriate officers - be ensured and are not less favourable than whatever they are enjoying at the moment.

I am glad the Member for Thomson has at least agreed that on principle we should have a unified salary scale for employees of the new statutory Board. It is pretty obvious that in order to arrive at this new salary scale, the terms of clause 9 should be such as to enable the Board to discuss it with the staff members in the Telecommunications Department and members in Cable and Wireless Ltd, so that this unified salary scale can be achieved. But the moment we insert the term "no less favourable than", that means they are stuck with the terms and conditions which they have now. Therefore, it is not possible to arrive at a unified salary scale. As I have explained earlier to the House, I myself inserted in the draft Bill "no less favourable than". But after listening to all sides, I was convinced that it was not possible to proceed with the transfer with this phrase "no less favourable than". Let me assure the House and staff members of Cable and Wireless Ltd, and in the Telecommunications Department that we want this telecommunications service to proceed smoothly, just as the telephone system in Singapore is proceeding smoothly under a statutory Board. Therefore, an opportunity will be given for negotiations between the Board and the staff members.

Mr Bani, a vote?

A vote. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division. The Committee divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 23; Abstentions, Nil; Absent, 9; Paired, 2. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Buang bin Haji Jumat. Omar Junid. Bani, S. T. Byrne, K. M. Fung Yin Ching, Chan Chee Seng. Miss. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Lee Siew Choh. Chor Yeok Eng. Leong Keng Seng. Goh Chew Chua Lim Yew Hock. Goh Keng Swee. Lin You Eng. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam Lingam, S. V. Kandasamy, G. Low Por Tuck. Lee Khoon Choy. Mohamed Ali. bin Lee Kuan Yew. Alwi. Lee Teck Him. Ng Teng Kian. Lim Cheng Lock. Ong Eng Guan. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Sheng Nam Chin. M. Ismail Rahim. Tan Cheng Tong. Ong Pang Boon. Tee Kim Leng. Rajaratnam, S. Thio Chan Bee. Ramaswamy, S. Wong Soon Fong. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Abstentions. Nil. Paired. Mammen,John. Absent. Seow Peck Leng, Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Mrs. Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib. Chan Sun Wing. Koh, C. H. Marshall, David. Ong Chang Sam. Rajah, A. P. Tan Kia Gan. Teo Hock Guan. Amendment accordingly negatived. Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 10 to 54 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Preamble ordered to be the Preamble of the Bill Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.35 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to carry out yet another move towards equality of status between men and women in our society. Hitherto, the income of a wife has been aggregated with that of the husband for taxation purposes. Taxation authorities are wary about separating incomes of wives from those of their husbands. Unless proper safeguards are taken, separation of incomes for assessment purposes can give rise to many opportunities for tax avoidance. At the same time, it is unfair that when a wife is earning an income through her own efforts and in her own right, such income should be, for taxation purposes, considered as accruing to her husband. This Bill seeks to remove this form of injustice hitherto imposed on working wives. May I first be allowed to clarify the principles underlying the Bill, before going into the implications of the separate clauses? This Bill provides that only the earned income of a wife shall be assessed separately. That is to say, the incomes from property, such as rent, dividends, interest on loans, etc. accruing to a wife shall continue to be aggregated with the income of her husband. This is obviously necessary in order to provide safeguards against large-scale tax avoidance. Where a wife works in the business carried on by her husband, and this business is a sole proprietorship or a partnership, she shall not deem to have earned a separate income except in certain specified profession. The purpose of this is quite clear. We do not want to allow a loophole whereby the husband can put the wife on the payroll of his business, thereby reducing his total tax liability. Where, however, the wife has her own professional qualifications as specified in clause 4 (b), then her income will be separately assessed from that of her husband, even though she works in her husband's business. This list of professions given includes doctors, lawyers, dentists, pharmacists, accountants, engineers and architects. There may be wives who work either as partners or employees in their husbands' private business, and where the wife is a duly qualified professional, she should be entitled to separate assessment of her income. The range of professions listed in clause 4 (b) is fairly comprehensive, but there may be the odd case in other professions where similar treatment is merited. I therefore intend to move, subject to your consent, Mr Speaker, Sir, and the general assent of Members present under Standing Order 32, an amendment in Committee to allow the extension to other professions. This would enable the Government to grant similar treatment to wives working in other professions than those listed in clause 4 (b). I do not know whether there are instances in other professions where the wife is a partner or an employee of the husband's private business. It is conceivable, for instance, that a private medical practitioner may marry his nurse. These things always happen in the Government service. If such a thing happens in private practice, then I think the nurse deserves the same rights as women in other professions. This clause, however, is not intended to be used indiscriminately. It must be confined to professions in which certain standards are laid down and observed. Offhand, I can think of professions like nursing, teaching, quantity surveying and valuation. There are professional standards here and registration procedures which will make the task of the Comptroller of Inland Revenue easier. This Bill will be of benefit to all married women who are employed in establishments unconnected with their husbands' business. There are married women teachers, doctors, clerks, stenographers, architects and so on. Professional married women will enjoy this benefit of separate assessment even if they do work in their husbands' business. But all married women, regardless of their profession, will enjoy this benefit if they are not working in their husbands' business. The other clauses of the Bill are really consequential to clause 4. They are, intended to regulate the manner in which deductions in respect of relief on account of dependants should be calculated so as to avoid double deduction for the same person. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.42 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the Minister that it is unfair to treat women's salaries as part of their husbands' salaries and assess them as one. I am glad about this Bill. But I cannot understand why this benefit is extended especially to professional women. What about the poor wife who works in her husband's shop, let us say, as a cashier in a little provision shop and who probably receives cash from her husband? Is not her value as much as if her husband had employed another girl who may not be as trustworthy as his own wife? Just because she is working in her husband's shop and just because she is not a professional, she is not to enjoy the benefits of this Bill. What if she is her husband's typist, cashier or stenographer? To add insult to injury, all these people are going to benefit if they do not work in their husbands' firms. So the penalty is, firstly, if they are not professional, and secondly, if they work in their husbands' firms. Sir, looking at this Bill it gives me the impression that it is going to benefit families in the higher income group. Let us take a clerk for instance who earns $400, and his wife is not working, compared with a man who earns $400 and his wife is earning $400. Mr A's family has to depend entirely on the $400 pay and yet that family is given less relief than the family who is earning $800 (husband $400 and wife $400). That family receives more relief. I cannot understand the logic of this - the more you earn the more relief you are given, an extra $1,000 to the wife. The argument is that the working wife spends more. What about the home, not the wife, with a non-wage-earning wife? It spends more too. It needs more, Sir, because it has less to spend. Sir, this logic that the wife who goes out to earn money needs more money to spend is very dangerous. The Government has just introduced equal pay for women, and equality for women. But while introducing equality between men and women, they are now creating this disparity amongst the women themselves. There are new anomalies now created between professional and non-professional women, non-professional women who work in their husbands' firms, non-professional women who do not work in their husbands' firms, and the non-wage-earning wives. All these new anomalies are quite unnecessary and dangerous. I say they are dangerous because at almost all United Nations conferences, especially when they talk about juvenile delinquency or the status of women, emphasis has always been laid on the deplorable fact that although the services of the non-wage-earning wife as a wife and a mother in the home are of the highest value, which cannot be replaced by any paid services, they have never been given recognition and the appreciation that they deserve. If this Bill is going through, it will further belittle such valuable services of a wife and mother. I hate to recall that in "The Tasks Ahead" of the P.A.P. they described housework services rendered by a wife to her husband, children and home as slavery aid drudgery of housework. They promised to free women from this slavery and drudgery. I was against it at that time and I am still against it. I deplore this attitude. I am surprised how the women on the Government Bencher allow these terms to be used. I say categorically as a woman that the service we render our husbands is a service to love to the family. A wife does not deserve to be called a wife if she calls those services to her family drudgery and slavery. It is a service of love to the family. Sir, this Bill emphasises the monetary value of the services of a woman to her family. It will destroy the beauty and the glory of a woman's services that she is capable of rendering to her loved ones. It tends to make the woman feel that, unless she can contribute financially to the family, she is inferior to the wife who can do so and therefore deserves less to spend and needs less. It tends to break the family unit because money will be the criterion of decision. The wife's dignity and respect will depend on how much money she can bring home. Her value will be measured by what financial contributions she is capable of making rather than, as it should be, by how much care and love she is capable of giving and by what a good mother or wife she makes in the home. Sir, let me as a woman give this warning to the men who are thinking of passing this Bill. Do not be surprised -

There are also men on the other side!

This warning is to all men who have wives who have been caring for them and rendering services of love in their home, especially where there is no necessity for them to go out and work and earn money: do not be surprised if the wives say, "All right, if that is the yardstick, I will go and work. You look after yourselves and the children because the real value of a woman is how much she can earn."

Go on strike.

Sir, this Bill is going to have a bad effect. It will demoralise housewives. I: will degrade the most important vocation of a woman, which is her services to her husband and children. It will force - probably inadvertently - women to leave their young children at home and go out to work to keep up their prestige especially when there is no need for them to do so. It breaks the family unit because in future money will be the yardstick by which her value to members of her family will be measured. You will agree with me, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this is most undesirable. All this put together is going to disrupt the family. When the family is disrupted and when women start thinking of their services to their husbands and children as drudgery and slavery, it is inevitable, that juvenile delinquency will be on the increase.

Mr Speaker, Sir, speaking as a man after a woman, I would like to say here -

Which woman are you after?

After the woman who has spoken!

That is better.

I find it difficult to understand the purpose behind all this. Sir, in the first place, the Government is proud to crow that it has reached an agreement on closer association with the Federation Government. Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 sets out that in regard to taxes it is Federal. May I therefore ask the Minister whether the Government has had any consultations with the Federation? If so, is the Federation Government going to introduce a similar Bill in order to regularise the income tax laws throughout Malaya? The Member for Mountbatten has touched on the family unit. I want to touch on it too but from a different angle - from that of a man. In spite of what the P.A.P. profess insofar as culture is concerned, they are now embarking on a scheme that is going to break up the family unit. I remember, and I am sure all married men will remember, what they and their brides said the day they got married: To cherish and to hold; what I have is yours and what you have is mine; we work and live together for the good of the family. But now the P.A.P. say, "Ah, but wives who work belong to a separate class - the P.A.P. class - because if you work, you can submit a separate income tax form for assessment." But what is the benefit? Just $1,000 more and nothing else.. Instead of a $1,000 allowance for the wife which is allowed under her husband's income tax returns, it means that if a wife qualifies under the proposed legislation she is entitled to a personal allowance of $2,000. If that is the case, why should the Government introduce a reduction from $2,000 to $1,000 for wives in 1961? Why place a premium on women who go out to work against women who stay at home to look after the family for the good of the family and of the country? Why? Is that culture? I myself as a man would place a higher value on the woman who stays at home and looks after her family and her house. But the P.A.P. say, "No. If you go out to work, all right, you can have your own income tax." All for a measly $1,000 extra allowance!, That is all - $1,000 extra personal allowance. Instead of $1,000 for a wife under her husband's income tax returns, she will get $2,000 if she submits her own separate income tax returns. Here again under clause 4, the Minister has brought out this statement. "It is all right. The wife can claim that I am feeding six children and, the husband can claim that he is feeding four children (if there are ten children in the house) so long as the husband and the wife do not claim for the same children." Are we not breaking up the family? Are we not letting our children know that it is the mother that looks after them and not the parents? Are we not trying to do that in this way, to tell your children, "Your mother is looking after you. Your father is no good. No, he cannot even earn." But if there is a family, if it is intended and if they really have their culture of a family unit -

It is a family bonus.

- the Government should not try to do things which tend to disrupt the family unit. To say that a wife can claim that she is supporting three children and the husband is supporting two so long as there is no false claim is to suggest to the wife and to the husband that perhaps it might be better to divide their children just like common property. It cannot be done that way. You cannot deal with human beings in that way.

Nobody is suggesting that.

If the Government are really sincere in saying that a married woman who earns should be allowed an extra $1,000 off, then why not do it through the simple process of including that in the income tax returns of her husband? If the wife works, all right, $2,000 allowance; and if the wife does not work, $1,000 allowance. But why should there be a difference? Even if the Government were to do that, I would ask them, why there should be that difference of $1,000? Does it mean that wives have a different value whether they work or they do not work? What I am more anxious to know is this. Have the Government consulted the Federation Government in the light of Paper Cmd. No. 33 that the taxes are going to be Federal? If they have, I want to know whether they have been told that the Federation Government will introduce similar legislation. If they have not, I want to know why it is that after having come to an agreement with another Government in all honesty, they now do something to show that they cannot be trusted, as we know that they cannot be trusted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to have clarification on two points. Firstly, can the Minister assure us that the relief of $3,000 in the case of the husband's income for his wife will not be interfered with if his wife is not employed? Because if by the wife working the husband is penalised, then of course that would not be fair to the husband. I just ask the Minister for clarification. Sir, on 11th December, 1961, I raised the question of income tax relief for aged parents and the reply was - to paraphrase it - that the Finance Minister had not given thought to that and that in view of the fact that income tax legislation would be a Federal subject he would not give any thought to that for the time being. In view of the fact that he has now brought up this amending Bill, I therefore infer that he must have consulted the Federal Government on this subject. If he has done so, can he please tell me whether he has also consulted the Federation Government as regards relief for aged and dependent parents, because in this country we do not have pensions for old people, whereas they have them in England? 4.00 p.m.

Dr Goh, in reply?

Sir, I listened with some astonishment to the speech of the Member for Mountbatten. Truly, Sir, you can never satisfy women! I was all the time wondering whether we should have proceeded with the wisdom of ever giving anything to women. However, I think she, in fact, deep down in her heart, fully approves of the principle of this Bill, but party discipline having been imposed on her, she had to raise some objections. Mrs Seow Peck Leng rose -

On a point of elucidation?

A question, Sir, I would like to inform the Minister that I am all in agreement with the Bill except for the fact that wives who are not working get less relief. I am suggesting that they should get as much relief in separate returns for income tax - a relief of $2,000 for women who are working. I am asking for more.

They are never satisfied.

Well, there you are. You can never satisfy them! Now, I will deal with the points that she raised, one by one. First, the extension of benefits to professional women, and not giving them to all wives as, for instance, the old lady who looks after a sundry shop. Where a man runs a family business and the wife takes charge of the till or the counter now and then, it is clear that in such a family business it is only fair that the income accruing to the whole business should be treated as one unit. That is a natural taxation entity. The other point is that you just let open loopholes for a terrific amount of tax avoidance, and that we are not prepared to do. The point was raised about the effects of this Bill on breaking of family units - demoralising housewives and forcing them to work. I cannot follow this logic. I have listened to both the Member for Mountbatten and the Member for Cairnhill, and I cannot follow their logic.

It is a different line.

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is quite simple. This is nothing new tried out in other countries. There has been no collapse of families and institutions in those countries, and there is not going to be any collapse or break-up of family spheres as a result of this Bill. In fact, all the three speakers, I think, misunderstood the effect of this Bill. They thought that the only benefit this Bill would confer on the taxpayer is to increase the personal allowances of working wives. That is not correct. When the income of a wife is taxed separately, then both the husband and the wife will pay income, tax at lower rates, and this is a fairly substantial benefit which they will get. Therefore, if you treat the wife as a separate taxpayer, naturally she will get the full benefit of personal allowances. Now it is not possible to give the assurance which the Member for Tanglin sought - that the man should get personal relief even when his wife is working. That is a bit thick. You cannot get it both ways. If the wife is working, she `should be exempt from taxation. This is separate. This is set out clearly in clause 3 (a). This clause, in conjunction with section 39 of the principal Ordinance, sets out that if the wife earns less than $1,000 a year, then what she earns will be deducted from the personal allowance. And, of course, if she earns more than $1,000 a year, then the husband gets no relief in respect of his wife. The Member for Tanglin raised the question of tax relief for aged parents. I do not know whether I should really reveal this to the House, but I did have a brief and informal discussion with the Minister for Finance in the Federation, and we both came to the conclusion that there is no case for proceeding with it. I am sorry to disappoint the Member for Tanglin; he looks a bit dejected, I thought. As for consultations with the Federation, we informed the Federation of our intention to proceed with this Bill and asked whether they would raise any objection. My Permanent Secretary brought up the matter before his opposite number several times, and I personally wrote to the Finance Minister in Kuala Lumpur asking whether he had any objection. After a reasonable passage of time, we did not hear from them and we proceeded with our own scheme. My understanding of this is that they themselves have not made up their minds on this issue, but since we are proceeding with equal pay for women, it is logical that this measure should be taken at about the same time.

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.

4.08 p.m. Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 -

The Minister has indicated that he wishes to move an amendment, In page 3, line 10, after "architect", to insert", and any other profession as may be approved by the Minister and notified in the Gazette,". No adequate notice has been given, and therefore Standing Order No. 32 applies. I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be moved? No dissenting voice. Dr Goh.

Sir, I move, In page 3, line 10, after "architect", to insert", and any other profession as may be approved by the Minister and notified in the Gazette,". Sir, on the Second Reading I have gone into the reasons why such an amendment is necessary, and I do not think I need repeat the argument here. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.12 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that the Bill be proceeded with. Members of the House may have read or heard a great deal about what is now termed "mushroom insurance companies" that have been carrying on life insurance business both in Singapore and the Federation. These companies are not doing the type of business normally associated with life insurance. One would normally associate a life insurance policy as being taken out by an insured person to set aside a small portion of his current income for the eventuality when there might be a danger to his life. The insurance cover that is provided will enable his dependants to have some protection should the worst happen to him. Subsequently life insurance has developed into a form of saving money, and many people buy life insurance policies as a form of savings for their old age. The mushroom insurance companies do not deal in this type of insurance. Their business is more a form of gambling and swindling as their main objective. They promise a fixed capital sum at the end of a period of years to anybody who is prepared to pay a regular monthly premium. The attraction here is that anybody, irrespective of his age or physical condition, can be insured. The gambling instincts of many people are strong, and the foolish and the avaricious are thereby induced to insure the lives of their aged or decrepit relatives in the hope of getting this capital sum after a short time. This form of life insurance degenerates into little more than gambling - the fortunes of the gamblers to be determined by the early or late demise of their insured relatives or friends. There have been cases where more than 100 policies have been taken out on the life of one old man in the family. These policies may be taken out on his life either by his children or by other relatives or even by total strangers. Mushroom insurance companies have exploited the situation and have duped thousands of people who possess strong gambling instincts and hope to make a quick penny. These people do not realise that they are playing into the hands of unscrupulous racketeers who have no intention whatsoever of remaining in the business for more than the initial few years. The mushroom companies begin their business by having runners working for them on a commission basis and selling as many policies as possible. Some of them do not even comply with the law by putting the required $200,000 deposit with the Accountant-General. One of the indications of the fact that they have no intention to remain in the business can be gleaned from the way the premium monies are collected. For a typical policy of $500 maturing at the end of ten years, a person who buys as insurance policy from a mushroom insurance company pays $5 entrance fee, $3 annual registration fee and $3 monthly premium. A policy can be taken out for anybody irrespective of age, sex and physical condition. No medical examination whatsoever of the insured person is necessary. The person who buys a policy needs to do very little except pay the necessary fee and monthly premiums. Often even the proposal forms are completed for him by the insurance company's agents. The first payment he has to make is a total of $11. This whole sum is not collected and paid into the insurance company, for in its effort to sell as many policies as possible, it has to offer attractive commission rates to its runners; and so $8 out of the first $11 is pocketed by the agents who sell the policy and the company gets only $3. Of the subsequent collections of $3 per month, the agents sometimes get as much as 30 to 40 per cent. By any actuarial assessment, the amount of premiums collected by the insurance company cannot provide the insured with a capital of $500 at the end of ten years. It is not likely that the mushroom insurance company can remain in business for long. In the Federation of Malaya, many mushroom companies came to life towards the latter part of 1960 and continued until a stop was put to them by a Federation legislation introduced in October 1961. By this time, there had already been in existence more than 50 mushroom companies. There were certain companies which were not even registered, but were nevertheless issuing insurance policies until the law caught up with them. In Singapore, there are 17 registered companies of this type - l4 of them being branches of Federation companies and three being incorporated in Singapore - with $200,000 deposited with the Accountant-General. The Government is of the view that this type of insurance companies should be prevented from further cheating the people. An effort should be made to assist the poor people who have purchased insurance policies to seek some form of redress, and, if possible, to recover a portion of their payment. The problem is a very big one. Hundreds of thousands of policies have been issued by various mushroom companies. The Federation Government has brought in legislation to wind up these unsound companies. I have obtained agreement from the Federation Government that the claims of policy holders in Singapore against the Federation companies will be treated in the same manner as those held by Federal citizens. Although this generous attitude has been adopted by the Federation Government, I would not like to raise the hopes of Singapore policy holders or beneficiaries. They must realise that they have ventured into a most unprofitable form of investment. What little asset may be left by the mushroom insurance companies would constitute in most instances only a small fraction of the money that has been mulcted from the policy holders during the period of operation. The monies that have been paid by the insured or the beneficiaries have been divided between the agents, collectors and various directors and employees of the company. Nevertheless, it is necessary that action be taken to terminate the activities of the unsound insurance companies operating in the State and to ensure that these rackets are stopped once and for all. For this reason, the Life Assurance Companies (Compulsory Liquidation) Bill is now before the House. Sir, I am moving this Bill on a Certificate of Urgency to enable the Government to deal with mushroom companies in the State effectively and to offer some redress to the poor policy holders from any assets that would be realised. Under the provisions of the Bill, the Minister may compel mushroom companies to furnish him within a period of seven days with the rates of premium they charge for policies issued. If the premium rates are found to be inadequate or determined without any actuarial basis, they, as well as those companies which have not complied with the Minister's notice, shall be considered unsound, and the Minister may petition the court to wind up these companies. This liquidation shall be carried out by the liquidators appointed by the court. They will be empowered to seize and realise the assets of the company under liquidation and distribute them on a pari passu basis with creditors who can establish proper claims. In doing so, priority payment shall be accorded to claims established by persons who have paid premiums to this company. In other words, policy holders of this company shall get first priority on the claims to the assets of this company. The Bill will also ensure that in future only life insurance companies which can satisfy certain minimum standards of actuarial and business rationality will be allowed to continue to operate or to start business in the State. The Bill now presented contains parallel legislative provisions incorporated in two of the Federation of Malaya Insurance Acts which were introduced in October 1961 and February 1962 respectively. Certain minor amendments, however, have been made in the light of experience in the Federation, both to facilitate the winding up and liquidation of the mushroom companies and to meet local conditions. The amended or additional provisions of the Bill are sub-clauses (4), (5) and (6) of clause 7. This would cater for the situation where mushroom companies are in the process of voluntary liquidation. The Government is aware that it could be possible, because of the terms laid down in insurance policy, that the policy holder would find difficulty in establishing his valid claim. It would, therefore, be to the interest of the policy holder for the company to be wound up in accordance with the provisions of the present Bill. Sub-clauses (4) and (5) of clause 8 will provide that the claims of the policy holders are given priority. We are aware that the assets of the insurance companies are not likely to be sufficient to meet all claims, and that very probably only a small proportion of the claims are likely to be met. Hence it is decided that policy holders should have first priority. Clause 13 enables the Minister to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Bill. Clause 14 amends the existing Life Assurance Companies Ordinance (Chapter 178) to provide for an increase of penalty for persons who fail to comply with the provisions of the Bill. The effect of this Bill will be threefold. First, it will enable a stricter control to be exercised over insurance companies. Second, it will enable the Minister to declare certain insurance firms which cannot comply with the requirements of clause 7 as being unsound and to order their winding up. Lastly, it will enable the liquidator to realise the assets of these companies and to distribute them in accordance with the claims received, but with priority being given to those of the policy holders. Sir, I beg to move, Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we welcome the provisions of this Bill, particularly that aspect of it which concerns itself with the compulsory liquidation of certain mushroom life assurance companies. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill seems to deal with two aspects of the problem. The first aspect is that it seeks to amend certain provisions of the Life Assurance Companies Ordinance (Chapter 178) which, as I see it, is a permanent statute intended to deal with all bona fide life assurance companies, whereas the main impetus given to the Bill before the House, I take it, was by these mushroom companies coming into operation; as a result of which it is necessary to compulsorily liquidate these companies. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would have welcomed two Bills on this - one dealing with permanent amendments to, if I may say so, a permanent Ordinance and a Liquidation Ordinance dealing specifically and particularly with the mushroom companies in respect of which this Bill really seeks to proceed against. On the aspect of the companies which this Bill seeks to liquidate, I find myself in sympathy with the Finance Minister in rushing this Bill through because the problem is one of urgency, and we ourselves from this side of the House have been pressing the Government to take immediate action against such companies. But there is this position where the Bill was presented to the Opposition, I understand, at about 3 o'clock: I was not in the House when it was presented. But may I suggest to the Minister - I do appreciate the urgency for this Bill - that if this Bill had been given to us say on Sunday (or Saturday afternoon, if that was possible), it might have served the purpose? But I derive some solace because this Bill follows to a very large extent the Federation Liquidation Ordinance which, I take it, was also promulgated to meet a similar difficulty in the Federation. So probably from that point of view, the objections of presenting this Bill in the manner in which it has been presented are not very substantial. But I do suggest to the Government that the major problems arising from these mushroom companies probably stem from the fact that the provisions of the present Life Assurance Companies Ordinance have not been utilised to the fullest possible extent. Mr Speaker, I was surprised to hear the Finance Minister say that in some cases not even the $200,000 deposit required by the Assurance Companies Ordinance had been extracted from these companies before they started business. If I heard the Minister correctly - An hon. Member: Branches.

Branches - I beg your pardon. Even then, Mr Speaker, Sir, if that was so, probably there is a hiatus in the law. Any foreign company - and it is a foreign company which establishes its branch here - seeking to carry on an insurance business here, having registered itself probably under section 301 of the Companies Ordinance or probably registered itself under the Life Assurance Companies Ordinance, -should, by that law, have been made to pay the $200,000 here rather than rely on the $200,000 paid in the Federation. Possibly there is a hiatus in the law. I have not looked into the Ordinance, but I would have done so if I had notice of this earlier. It did surprise me to hear from the Minister that it was possible for a life insurance company which .was possibly incorporated in the Federation of Malaya to start business in this commercial city of ours and extract a lot of premiums without paying the minimum deposit which the Government thought was necessary before it was let loose on the unsuspecting public. Other than that, I have no comments. I have hurriedly looked through this Bill and the clauses that are new seem to be matters which I think are improvements on the Federation Bill. On that score, I have nothing to say. But I do hope that the provisions of this Bill will be carried out to their fullest possible extent, that the culprits will be brought to book and that the severest punishment possible under the law be `meted out to them because they have been making use of the gullibility of the poor citizens of Singapore to enrich themselves. Such people are not deserving of sympathy or mercy and the Government should proceed against them to the fullest possible extent under the law. 4.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that many years ago we had a similar mushroom growth of bogus life insurance companies. Therefore, I fail to understand why when we had this mushroom growth in 1960 the Government had failed to take immediate action and warn the public against investing their whole life savings in these bogus life insurance companies. We understand that there is a Commercial Crimes Branch of the Police Department. I do not know whether it has brought to the attention of the Government the activities of these bogus life insurance companies. If it has, then it is a crime and a failing of the Government in not having taken action one or two years back. After the citizens of Singapore have lost their life savings in the policies issued by these bogus life insurance companies, the Government is now forced to take appropriate action. Mr Speaker, Sir, in my view, most of the directors or managers of the life insurance companies who formed these companies were conscious that they were perpetrating a fraud and swindling the poor gullible public. The Bill, as it stands, is going to treat these bogus insurance companies in the same way as the Government is treating persons who run into bankruptcy. I do not agree that such companies should be treated in the same way as bankrupts are treated by the law. The Government should go one step further. They should take criminal action against the directors and managers of these bogus insurance companies and, if necessary, impound their personal assets. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not envisage these policy holders getting back anything substantial from their investments in these companies because the Minister for Finance has said just now that much of the funds were wasted or were spent on agents' commission, collection fees, and so on. In addition to this expenditure, the directors and managers who were prepared to perpetrate a fraud must have also written off large sums of money in the form of salaries, travelling allowances and, perhaps, transferred a big portion of their assets elsewhere. Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly advocate that the Government should take action not only under the proposed insurance law but that it should also take criminal action against the directors and managers of these life insurance companies. Sir, I would like the Minister to inform the House how many of these companies registered in Singapore, and how many branches of companies registered in the Federation, do not pay the $200,000 deposit which is required of a life insurance company, and whether the Government would consider introducing legislation to make sure that in future a percentage of the premiums collected in Singapore by all life insurance companies are invested in Singapore. 4.42 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill which has been introduced today is just like trying to prepare the net for the fish that has already escaped. But we welcome this Bill which the Government has introduced today because it will prevent any future occurrence of illegal insurance agents and directors mulcting our local people. We did not have much time to study this Bill in detail because we only received it this afternoon in this Chamber. According to the explanation given by the Minister for Finance, there are at present 17 life insurance companies of this sort in Singapore. I understand that these insurance companies have already wound up their business and that many policy holders have not been able to contact the insurance agents after the Government announced its intention of introducing legislation. Many policy holders are now worried and they are at a loss as to how they can get back all or part of the premiums they paid. The Minister for Finance explained that the liquidator appointed by the court will have the power to order the liquidation of these life insurance companies - whether they are incorporated locally or in the Federation - and that a certain amount will be paid back to the policy holders after the assets of these companies have been assessed on liquidation. But we understand that such life insurance companies have very limited assets in Singapore. At the most, they have a few rooms in an office and a few vans. It is also doubtful whether these really belong to them. The Minister has said that when these insurance companies are liquidated the-local citizens will get priority on their claims for compensation. But I say that what they will get will be very limited. The Minister for Finance has said that he had already discussed the matter of companies which are registered in the Federation of Malaya with the Federation Minister of Finance and that Singapore citizens, just like Federal citizens, will be able to get compensation from such companies. He has also very clearly intimated that the policy holders will be able to get a very limited amount of payment out of the premiums paid to these companies which are registered in the Federation. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Government should try to take all possible steps to recover what the policy holders have paid in the way of premiums to these companies. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a great number of such insurance companies. It may be that there are only 17 in Singapore because of the Mutual Benefit Organisations Bill which was passed in this Assembly sometime ago. Many people who were members of these mutual aid associations then took out policies with such life insurance companies. I understand the Social Welfare Department has helped to transfer membership lists of certain mutual aid societies to the Kinta Life Assurance Company. At that time, I discussed with the then Minister for Labour and the Member for Bukit Timah about organising a committee on this question. The names of members of the mutual aid societies were transferred to the membership list of this life insurance company. But now this life insurance company has already stopped functioning. Many of the policy holders have told me that it was the Government which helped them to transfer their names to this life insurance company. Therefore, the Government should be responsible for getting back their payments on their behalf. I have already informed the Director of Social Welfare of this matter and have urged that the Government should contact this life insurance company so that a solution to this problem can be arrived at. I hope the Minister for Finance can give us a reply on this point. Sir, after the Bill is passed, we hone that the poor people of Singapore will not be exploited any more by agents and operators of these illegal life insurance companies. We also hope that from now on the Minister for Finance will pay more attention to such illegal companies in order that the people of Singapore will not suffer any more losses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to clear up one point which the Member for Choa Chu Kang has referred to just now. He tried to give the House the impression that the Social Welfare Department got contributors to a mutual aid organisation to transfer to the Kinta Insurance Company. Mr Speaker, Sir, there was an old lady who was operating some sort of a family benefit society in the Bukit Panjang area. As soon as the Government introduced the Mutual Benefit Organisations Bill, she ceased to do business and there was a danger of those who had contributed to her little organisation losing all their money. At that time, the Kinta Insurance Company of the Federation were seeking to do business in Singapore and they had a number of discussions and meetings with all the interested parties together with the officials of the Social Welfare Department. They undertook to take over all the liabilities of the organisation that was run by the old lady in Bukit Panjang. A meeting was held. All the contributors to this organisation met at the Community Centre in Bukit Timah Road. The position was explained to them and they agreed to transfer to the Kinta Insurance Company. Before the Company took over the liabilities of the old lady, they paid a deposit of $200,000 to the Ministry of Finance. So that the position as far as those contributors are concerned is that because they sought the assistance of the Social Welfare Department they would now be able to have access to the money that has been deposited with the Ministry of Finance.

Dr Goh, in reply.

Sir, the Member for Farrer Park made the important point that the purpose of this amending Bill is a temporary one, to deal with certain mushroom companies, and that it is not really something that is suitable to remain as a permanent statute. I entirely agree with him. The programme that is before the Governments of Singapore and the Federation is to introduce a comprehensive Ordinance to regulate all the various forms of insurance - not only life insurance but fire insurance, marine insurance, and so on. We have worked on this for nearly two years with the assistance of experts sent by the Australian Government under the Colombo Plan. So we hope eventually to have a tidy and permanent Ordinance on the statute book regulating the proper conduct of insurance companies. The second point the Member for Farrer Park made was this. He asked whether it was true that foreign branch companies could operate in Singapore without paying a deposit of $200,000. The answer is that any company that has made a deposit with the Federation Accountant-General can carry on business in Singapore without making a deposit here; and vice versa anybody who makes a deposit in Singapore can carry on operation in the Federation. However, when we get the final legislation on this, I think all these weaknesses in our present law will be remedied. I now come to the Member for Hong Lim who implied that these bogus insurance companies were known to have started many years ago and he asked why no action was taken earlier. The answer of course is that the Member has got his facts wrong. So far as Singapore is concerned, mushroom companies began to sprout round about the middle of last year and they were really active from September or October onwards last year. Therefore, they have not had all the time in the world to carry out their nefarious activities. Therefore, it is quite untrue for the Member for Hong Lim to allege that most of the poor have lost all their life savings. I would say that a person who took out an average policy of $500 might have paid out - I do not know - $20 or $25 from, say, last September till now, and I think the life savings of the poor are considerably more than this. I think there is one point to which some attention must be drawn. In the policies of most of these companies, it is stated that unless you pay your monthly premiums regularly your policy will lapse. I think they give a period of grace of two months or so. Now under this Bill whatever is paid will be considered as a claim on the assets of the company when it is wound up and if the condition of the policy say the policy lapses, that condition will be set aside. Now both the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Hong Lim urged that the strongest action be taken against the offending parties. I am completely in agreement with the sentiment behind this request, but I can see certain difficulties. First, the directors of all these companies are Federation citizens and therefore, this being a civil suit, it is not possible for the Singapore Government to request the extradition of the culprits. No doubt the Federation Government will take suitable action should criminal offences be revealed in the course of their investigations into the activities of these companies. In fairness to some of these directors or some of the persons connected with these companies, I think it is wrong to say that all of them are equally criminal and evil-minded. Some may have been led into this business and induced to put some capital into it by the major culprits, and there may be innocent people among the directors who have been misled by the promoters into putting money into this venture. Therefore, although we can say with confidence that the persons who run this mushroom insurance business run it as a racket, nevertheless we cannot condemn everyone connected with this enterprise. I think my colleague the Minister for Health and Law has answered the main point raised by the Member for Choa Chu Kang and I need not say more on this subject.

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.

4.57 p.m. Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 - Question proposed, "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

I realise that clause 2 has enlarged the scope of an actuary as defined in the Life Assurance Companies Ordinance to "include a Fellow of the Society of Actuaries in America and any person possessing such other qualifications as the Minister may, by order, prescribe."

We are on clause 3.

I know. At the moment, I am told that the qualifications under the Ordinance are very difficult to obtain and that there are very, very few actuaries in this work. Of that, I am told there are about two or three persons in Singapore. I have met two of them but there may be a third. Now under clause 3, a present insurance company or a future insurance company - it seems to me reading this clause hurriedly - will not be able to carry out their operations "unless there is in force a certificate by an actuary .... establishing the minimum rates of premium which are proper to be charged". As I do not know how many insurance companies there are - perhaps 12, 15 or 20; I do not know the exact number; certainly over 12 - I would take it that the actuaries in Singapore would be employed by these insurance companies. Assuming that an insurance company employs one of the actuaries and another insurance company employs the other, then it seems to me that the rest of the insurance companies are left without an actuary. Now is the suggestion by the Government under this clause that these two or three actuaries in Singapore are going to act for the ether companies and provide them with certificates which will enable them to carry on their business? While I agree with the principle behind the Bill, I do not know whether it is possible, from a practical point of view, to fix an appointed day in the near future and then bring into play the provisions of this Bill.

I do not really expect much trouble on the administration of this clause. I think we can allow the insurance companies some time and obviously we must give them an interval of time to get the certificates from an actuary. I agree with the Member for Farrer Park that the number of qualified actuaries is small. 5.00 p.m. I think that is largely because they have formed themselves into possibly the tightest professional trade union in the world. Quite impossible terms and conditions are laid down, but the work itself is not at all difficult. So far as reputable life insurance companies go, they have more or less the same premium rates and the same conditions of calculations. And quite frankly, I do not see any difficulty about this. Certainly it is not the intention of the Government to say, `Well, you are late with your certificate and you should close clown." That is the last thing we want to do.

The point that exercises my mind is this: there are no actuaries to my knowledge - I may be wrong, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I am subject to correction here by the Minister - in Singapore actually practising on their own as actuaries. They are no consultants. That is the difficulty I envisage. Now, if each of the actuaries here is attached to a particular insurance company, the company would bind him to exclusive service. If, therefore, these actuaries cannot certify for the other companies, then these companies will experience difficulty. Now, if the Minister proposes to appoint persons in Singapore to do that, possibly that would ease the situation. If the Minister also permits actuaries living in other countries to certify for particular companies registered in Singapore, I think that also would further ease the situation.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 4 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn to Tuesday, 17h April, 1962."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Five o'clock p.m. to Tuesday, 17th April, 1962.