Hansard, 1965-12-31

Order. I have to report that on the 30th day of December, 1965, the President of the Republic of Singapore assented to the following Bills:-

The following Question stood in the name of Mr P. Govindaswamy --- 1. To ask the Minister for Law and National Development whether the Government is aware that during heavy rains Cheng Cheok Street and Tapah Street are flooded and whether the Government has any plans to remedy the situation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the absence of Mr P. Govindaswamy, may I ask Question No. 1?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is aware that during heavy rains, Cheng Cheok Street and Tapah Street are flooded. The levels of the two streets are some three feet below high water during spring tide. This gives rise to flooding when heavy rains occur at the time of spring tide. Flooding is further aggravated by rubbish from the nearby market in Narcis Street which regularly chokes the roadside drains. This flooding in Cheng Cheok Street and Tapah Street is not considered to be serious, as it occurs only when a heavy shower falls during spring tide. It is also difficult to do much in the way of flood alleviation because the area is fully built-up and densely populated.

"to amend the Immigration Ordinance, 1959, of Malaysia, in its application to Singapore", presented by the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the first available sitting day after the 7th January, 1966, and to be printed.

2.34 p.m. Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the second and third readings of the Supply Bill for 1966 and the Supplementary Supply Bill, 1965, be taken today." - [Mr Lim Kim San].

Order for Second and Third Readings read. 2.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to provide statutory authority in accordance with clause 2 of Article 85 and clause 2 of Article 87 of the Constitution of Singapore for certain additional provisions for expenditure in excess of the provisions for expenditure authorised by the Supply Ordinance. These additional sums which were scheduled as Supplementary Estimates have received the approval of Parliament. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Will the Minister move the Third Reading?

Sir, 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 and Third Readings read. 2.37 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Main Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the year 1966 have been considered and approved by the House as Cmd. Paper 25 of 1965. Under Section 85 of the Constitution of Singapore, Heads of Expenditure other than statutory expenditure to be met from the Consolidated Fund have to be included in a Bill to be known as a Supply Bill. The purpose of such a Bill is to provide for the issue from the Consolidated Fund of the sums necessary to meet the expenditure and the appropriation of those sums for the purposes specified therein. The Supply Bill before Members is to give legislative approval for the issue of funds from the Consolidated Fund to meet the sums of expenditure shown in the Estimates of Expenditure for 1966. In the Schedule to the Bill are shown the various heads of expenditure and the sums that may be incurred in respect of each head. These have been approved by the House in the Estimates of Expenditure for 1966 and appear in pages 53 and 54 of Paper Cmd. 25 of 1965. Once the Supply Bill is approved, I will be empowered to issue warrants authorising expenditure up to the amount under each Head as shown in the Bill to be paid out from the Consolidated Fund. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Minister, will you please move the Third Reading?

Sir, 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.

2.40 p.m.

This Motion* in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister is subject to the consent of the Speaker and the general assent of the Members now present. I give my consent. May I take it that the House gives its general assent to the Minister moving the Motion? *The Motion reads as follows: That this House appoints a Committee of Selection with Mr.Speaker in the chair and the following members:- Dr Toh Chin Chye Inche A. Rahim Ishak Mr K. C. Lee Mr Ho Cheng Choon Mr Chan Chee Seng Mr Kow Kee Seng Mr Chia Thye Poh. Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to Standing Order 92 (1) (b): `(b) The Committee of Selection shall consist of the Speaker as Chairman, and seven Members of the Assembly to be appointed by the Assembly, in such manner as shall ensure that, so far as is possible, the balance between the Government benches and the Opposition benches in the Assembly is reflected in the Committee.' It is for this reason provided for in the Standing Order that I have included two names, Mr Kow Kee Seng and Mr Chia Thye Poh, from the Opposition benches in the Committee of Selection, although the Opposition Members have absented themselves from this House. I have also written to both Mr Kow Kee Seng and Mr Chia Thye Poh asking them whether they would want to serve in the Committee of Selection in keeping with the requirements of Standing Order 92 (1) (b). However, neither of them has had the courtesy to reply. There has been dead silence from both of them. But I feel that the functions and the workings of this Legislature should not be paralysed by the unco-operative attitude of Members of the Opposition. Neither should it be held to ransom simply because Members of the Opposition take it into their heads that they have their own reasons for absenting themselves from the House. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the Opposition has not made an appearance in this Chamber, I have, in accordance with the requirements of Standing Order 92 (1) (b), included the names of Mr Kow Kee Seng and Mr Chia Thye Poh. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House appoints a Committee of Selection with Mr.Speaker in the chair and the following members:- Dr Toh Chin Chye Inche A. Rahim Ishak Mr K. C. Lee Mr Ho Cheng Choon Mr Chan Chee Seng Mr Kow Kee Seng Mr Chia Thye Poh.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [30th December, 1965], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 2.43 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the trade unions would like to be given extensive power under Section 77 of the Ordinance to prosecute the employers whenever they are found to be victimising their workers. But I am not sure whether this will do any good to the trade union movement in the long run. For one thing, there is no guarantee that the powers so given will not be abused. If the trade union movement only consists of persons like the Member for Bras Basah and the Member for Telok Blangah who are reasonable and intelligent people, then there need be no worry. But --- Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah) rose ---

On a point of order or on a point of clarification?

On a point of clarification, Sir. Mr Jek Yeun Thong resumed his seat.

In my speech yesterday, I did not ask the Minister for Labour to give the trade unions the power to prosecute employers when employers dismiss the workers. What we are asking under section 77 is that the Ordinance be simplified as we have come across many cases of victimisation and we have found it very difficult to bring the employers to book. What makes the procedure cumbersome is this, Sir. Undue emphasis has been placed on the reference to the Public Prosecutor for his opinion on whether the prosecution is to be instituted or not. The whole point is that we want the Ordinance to be simplified. We do not want to be so very unreasonable as to prosecute employers as soon as they dismiss the workers.

I have not come to that story yet. I will give it later. I am inclined to believe that most of the unions affiliated to the N.T.U.C. are reasonable. They are led by responsible leaders and they will not abuse the power. But I am not so sure about the unions which are not affiliated to the N.T.U.C., especially when they are assisted by Lenin-styled lawyers. Once this power is given, I am quite sure they will abuse it to the full and bring our economic system to a grinding halt. In fact, they are already doing this now even without the help of this power. What will happen if this power is given to them will be unimaginable. Then there is another point. A man who has invested his money in a shop or a firm or a factory and has become an employer would like to be given some freedom of what is called "Hire and fire". If every time he dismisses a worker, whether on genuine grounds or not, he is to be hauled up in court to answer charges of victimisation, life would be indeed quite miserable for him. In fact, the N.T.U.C. at one time earlier had wanted to lay down in the Ordinance that the employer has to go to gaol once he is convicted under section 77. What would the employer think of this if every time he sacks a man he has to go to gaol for it? How would he maintain discipline in his factory? If, in these circumstances, a man still wants to invest his money here and open up factories to benefit our workers, then I think he must have his head examined at the Woodbridge Hospital. So it is no wonder that when this proposal of the N.T.U.C. was put up to the Employers' Federation, there was an uproar from the employers. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are in a very delicate position. We are a pro-labour Government and we want to make everything easy for the workers. But, on the other hand, we must also protect the interests of the employers so that they are not unduly persecuted and do not start running away. On the one side, there is this demand from the N.T.U.C., and on the other, there is this resistance from the employers. We must strike a balance somewhere, and I say the compromise is in clause 22 of the Bill. There were extensive discussions among Mr Devan Nair, the Attorney-General, officials in my Ministry and myself before we finally put in this amendment. Hitherto, a complaint of victimisation is reported to the police and they will investigate it from the police point of view. They seldom secure enough evidence to initiate proceedings. But after this amendment, it is provided that a complaint of this nature should be referred to the Commissioner for Labour. He will then investigate the case from the industrial angle. If he is satisfied that there is evidence of victimisation, he will inform the Public Prosecutor and proceedings can be initiated. In this way, we are able to sieve through all the cases before they go to the court. Otherwise, our courts will be jammed up with all kinds of complaints of victimisation. An exact copy of this Bill was forwarded to the N.T.U.C. on 14th September, 1965. For nearly four months it was lying in the office of the N.T.U.C. and we have not heard from them that there is something wrong in the Bill. Based on this copy which we had forwarded to the N.T.U.C., the then Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C., Mr Devan Nair, has this to say in his report to the N.T.U.C. Second Annual Conference in October this year, and I quote, in page 18 ---

From the same paper?

Yes, in the same report. In page 18, he said: `A close study of the Bill will show that the N.T.U.C. can feel justifiable pride at having secured progressive amendments to the Industrial Relations Ordinance in the interest of industrial justice and fair play.' This is not the personal opinion of Mr Devan Nair, for this report was unanimously adopted by the N.T U.C. Conference in front of trade union leaders from the Afro-Asian countries. I now come to the remarks made by the Member for Bras Basah when he raised a query on whether the proposed section 15A would restrict the Minister's right to intervene in any dispute between an employer and a trade union which has lost out on a secret ballot. The hon. Member need not have any fear on this score. The proposed amendments do not in any way restrict the Minister's power, and I can assure the Member that I still have the power to direct any trade dispute to arbitration by the Industrial Arbitration Court under section 28 (b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. In regard to the Member for Telok Blangah's complaint that the 14 days' limit for making an appeal against a referee's decision, as provided for in sub-clause (6) of clause 18, it is apparent that he is not conversant with the procedure of the Industrial Arbitration Court in this matter. I would like to enlighten him that the current practice of the Court is to insist that all referee's decisions should be handed down in writing either by the referee himself or to the Registrar at the direction of the Court. A copy of the written decision of the referee is immediately made available to the parties concerned. The regulations that will be prescribed for appeal will lay down the procedure for appeal step by step beginning with the notice of appeal. Once the notice of appeal has been filed within 14 days under sub-clause (6) of clause 18, the court will proceed to make available the full transcript of the referee's proceedings together with a copy of the referee's decision and all relevant exhibits to enable the appellant to prepare his petition of appeal. So far the Court has not laid down any time limit for the appellant to submit his petition of appeal, but eventually this will be regulated. I, therefore, fail to see the necessity for the amendment proposed by the Member. In view of this, I see no necessity for either an employer or a union to employ stenographers at its own expense to take down court proceedings for its own use. Sir, I beg to move.

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

3.55 p.m.

Unless any hon. Member wishes to speak on any particular clause in the Bill, I propose to take clauses 1 to 23 en bloc. Mr Ho See Beng rose ---

Yes, Mr Ho. Do you wish to speak on any particular clause?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to seek the general assent of this House to introduce an amendment without notice to clause 16 of the ---

We will deal with that when we come to that. Up to clause 15, the Member does not wish to say anything then. Is that correct?

Clause 16.

Up to clause 15, you are all right. You have no amendments to move?

Yes. Clauses 1 to 15 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 16 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, Clause 16 of the Bill provides for a trade union to submit claims on the employer, but we often come across employers who, on receiving claims from the unions, embark on an action of dismissal or retrenchment, and we have submitted proposed amendments to the Labour Ministry ---

Does the Member just want to speak on the clause, or does he want to move an amendment to it?

I want to move an amendment.

Will the Member move the amendment? Let us see what is the amendment.

My amendment is that in clause 16 an amendment be introduced that any employer on receiving claims served by the union shall not embark on any action to retrench or dismiss the workers.

Does the Member have it in writing? Could he give it to me in writing?

I have not got it in writing, but I can write it down.

Please do.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order. Should not the hon. Member seek the general assent of the House to introduce this amendment if he wants to move an amendment without giving notice?

Procedurally, the Minister is perfectly correct. I have received no notice of amendment, and the Member for Bras Basah will not be allowed to move an amendment unless he has the general assent of the House. I just want the Member to produce his amendment so that I can put it to the House and find out whether they want to give general assent. But if the feeling of the House is that no general assent is going to be forthcoming, that might very well be the end of that amendment. 3.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not that I would not like to accept the amendment from the N.T.U.C., but I have already said that a copy of this very Bill was given to the N.T.U.C. on the 14th September. It has been lying in their office for almost three months, and if the Member thinks that there is any reason for any amendment, he should have given it to us in the Labour Ministry so that we could have studied it properly and accepted it if agreed. I think that we cannot just accept any amendments to this Bill, because this Bill will become law for our industries. If we start accepting amendments without any notice, it would make our laws very loose and difficult to administer.

Do I gather then that the House is not ready to give its assent to the Member to move his amendment without notice?

Mr Speaker, I consider this amendment is very vital to the workers. So when I submit it to you, Mr Speaker, you can put it to the House. And if the House rejects this amendment of mine, then I will withdraw it.

I think we have not reached the stage where we are to discuss the merits or demerits of the proposed amendment. We are considering whether the Member should, after having been given a very long notice, specifically as Chairman of the N.T.U.C., spring an amendment at the last minute in this House. If the Member says that it is a very vital matter, then it should have been attended to long ago. In principle, I think it is bad to introduce amendments without notice, where Members of the House would not have been given every opportunity to consider them, and I will oppose the introduction of any amendment to this clause.

That finishes that. Mr Ho, you do not have the general assent of the House, and in view of that, your amendment cannot be moved.

Mr Speaker, I, as a Member of this House, would like to give my assent to the amendment.

No. It must have general assent. An hon. Member: One vote!

Mr Ho, all that I can do for you is that I will propose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill, and you can have your full say on it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, I am obliged. But since I cannot get general assent of this House, I do not want either to speak on it or introduce any amendment.

Very well. Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 17 to 23 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 24 -

The Minister has given notice of two amendments which appear in the Order Paper Supplement. Now, before I call upon the Minister to move his first amendment, I would like to draw his attention to what appears to be a clerical error in lines 2 and 3 of the clause. Sub-clause (1) of clause 24 reads: `The following sections of the Ordinance are hereby amended by deleting the expression "State Advocate-General" wherever they appear...'. There appears to be a grammatical error in `the expression "State Advocate-General" wherever they appear ...'. We had a similar mistake previously. I wonder if the Minister will agree to that. Now, in view of the drafting of sub-clause (2) and the proposed new sub-clause (3) in the Minister's second amendment where the word "words" is used rather than "expression", perhaps the Minister may wish to consider proposing an amendment, In page 9, line 2, to leave out "expression" and there insert "words". If that is done, then the whole section will tie up properly with the same word being used all the time. If the Minister agrees, the amendment requires my consent and the general assent of Members present. I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be moved? Hon. Members indicated assent. Amendment made: In page 9, line 2, to leave out "expression" and there insert "words". - [Mr Jek Yeun Thong].

Mr Speaker, I wonder whether in the fourth line the word "expression" should also be changed to "words". After the amendment just now, I think that if the whole clause were to read properly, then the word "expression" should be changed to "words", so that the clause will read: `...by deleting the words "State Advocate-General" wherever they appear therein and substituting therefor the words "Attorney-General":-'. Would that not be more consistent?

Will the Minister agree to that?

I seek your consent and the general assent of the House.

It is all right. There is nothing wrong with it, neither is the "expression".

Sir, I move, In page 9, line 4, to leave out "expression" and there insert "words".

I think "Attorney-General" is a compound word, and therefore it should be "word".

I am sorry.

The Minister has my consent to move his amendment. Has it the general assent of the House? Hon. Members indicated assent. Amendment made: In page 9, line 4, to leave out "expression" and there insert "word" -[Mr Jek Yeun Thong].

Mr Speaker, I move, In page 9, line 5, after "60 (1),", to insert "61 (1),". This is an oversight in drafting. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move, In page 9, after line 11, to add - `(3) The following sections of the Ordinance are hereby amended by deleting the words "Yang di-Pertuan Negara" wherever they appear therein and substituting therefor the words "President of Singapore" - Sections 2, 3 (1), 5 (1), 15 (1), 28 (c) and 30.'. This is an amendment in nomenclature subsequent to the changes recently introduced to our Constitution. Amendment agreed to. Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.11 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." After Singapore became a sovereign Republic, independent of Malaysia, certain amendments have become necessary to the Probate and Administration Ordinance, and these are contained in clauses 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, and 15 of the Bill. The opportunity has also been taken to make other long-awaited amendments to fill in some gaps in the law relating to probate and administration. Mr Speaker, Sir, at Common Law the personal estate of an intestate in England vested in the church and realty vested in the heir-at-law till letters of administration were granted. The Administration of Estates Act, 1925, of the United Kingdom, which is not applicable in Singapore, vests the real and personal estate of an intestate until administration is granted in the Probate Judge. In Singapore it is assumed that the estate of an intestate vests in all the Judges of the High Court pending the grant of administration. Clause 5 will clarify the legal position by vesting the estate of an intestate in the Chief Justice between the death of the intestate and the grant of letters of administration. Clause 8 proposes to add to section 54 of the Ordinance a proviso to make it clear that the Official Assignee can, in urgent cases, apply for letters of administration within six months of the death of the deceased. At present it would appear that he has to wait for six months to elapse from the death of the deceased person before applying for probate or letters of administration. Clauses 9 and 10 propose to introduce detailed provisions for the administration of the assets of a deceased person whether the estate is solvent or insolvent at the death of the deceased, and to provide for the manner in which charges on the property of the deceased are to be paid. These provisions are taken from the United Kingdom Administration of Estate Act, 1925. They also appear in the Probate and Administration Ordinance, 1959, of the Federation of Malaya. Under section 60 of the Probate and Administration Ordinance, the Official Assignee may administer the estate of any person who dies leaving property in Singapore not exceeding $2,000 in value, as though letters of administration had been granted to him. Since the introduction of the Central Provident Fund Ordinance and other legislation for the benefit of the workers, most people in Singapore die leaving property worth more than $2,000. Clause 12 provides for the summary administration of estates not exceeding $10,000 in value by the Official Assignee. Clause 13 proposes to give the Official Assignee power to pay for a minor's maintenance, education or benefit out of property not exceeding $10,000 in value held by him upon trust for such minor out of income or capital in his sole discretion. At present, the Official Assignee has power to pay for a minor's maintenance, education and benefit when the property so held by him does not exceed $1,000. Clause 13 also gives the Official Assignee exemption from the necessity of giving notice of distribution of property of less than $5,000, but such exemption will not free the Official Assignee from any obligation to make the usual searches. Clause 14 enables the Official Assignee to conclude the administration of an estate within a reasonable time by paying the undistributed funds to the Public Trustee. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has been referred to the Singapore Bar Committee who support all its provisions. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Barker}. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.19 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill he now read a Second time." The proposed amendments to the income Tax Ordinance include a number of textual changes and changes of terminology taking account of the separation of Singapore from Malaysia and the independent and sovereign status of the Republic. In particular, the jurisdiction of the Malaysian Board of Income Tax and the Comptroller-General of Inland Revenue will no longer extend to Singapore. The amendments in clause 29 will restore certain personal reliefs for individual taxpayers to pre-Malaysia levels. For instance, earned income relief is to be increased from one-tenth of the income earned to one-fifth, subject to a maximum of $1,000; the deduction from chargeable income for life insurance premiums and provident fund contributions is to be increased from $3,000 to $4,000 or one-sixth of the assessable income; married women are to he permitted again to elect to have assessment of the income tax liability on their earned income separate from their husbands; but children's allowances will be limited to a maximum of five children. On the other hand, the higher pre-Malaysia rate of tax on individuals whose chargeable income exceeds $100,000 is to be restored by clause 59 to 55 per cent. The opportunity is also taken to plug loopholes in the existing legislation to render more effective the administration of the revenue laws generally. For instance, clause 5 will make it possible for the Comptroller of Income Tax to disclose official information to the Comptroller of Property Tax where such information may be required for the purpose of property tax collection. Under clause 14, power is to he given to the Comptroller to take possession of documents in certain circumstances where offences have been or are likely to be committed, e.g, where false books of accounts have been kept. Under clause 8, a new provision is introduced to enlarge the scope of the charging provisions, rendering liable to tax miscellaneous forms of income in respect of which no specific provision now exists. A further amendment in clause 8 limits the exemption in respect of the net annual value of an owner-occupied house to $3,000 which would provide for additional tax liability in respect of those owning expensive residences. Under clause 12, the Comptroller is to be empowered to curtail the deduction allowable where a taxpayer makes abnormal payments of salaries or wages to close relatives, e.g, wife, husband or child, which are not bona fide. As an independent Republic, double taxation arrangements will he entered into with other countries, and in clause 5 provision is to be made for the exchange of official information with the taxation authorities of other countries with which double taxation arrangements exist to prevent tax evasion. Consequent upon the separation from Malaysia, the tin profits tax provisions are to be repealed by clause 9 and such profits will be charged income tax under the relevant Malaysian legislation. Under clause 11, the liability for tax of income derived in Sabah and Sarawak is to be restored to the extent that it is remitted to Singapore. In keeping with Government's policy to encourage industrialisation and market development, certain new provisions have been introduced. Under clause 14, a new provision has been made to allow a further deduction in respect of market development expenditure overseas and for increased local advertisement expenditure. Clause 18 provides for the Minister to vary the rate of initial allowance which may be given in respect of plant and machinery by Order, thus allowing for flexibility. Clause 19 introduces a special incentive allowance in respect of plant and machinery used in various manufacturing industries whereby the cost may be written off after three years. Consequent upon the full independence of Singapore, the former combined income provisions, whereby Singapore and States of Malaya residents were assessed in their places of residence irrespective of where they derived their income, are no longer appropriate and are repealed by clause 56. Certain consequential provisions are made necessary by such repeal to prevent hardship arising. Under clause 23, residents in the States of Malaya who continue carrying on business in Singapore will receive capital allowances under the Singapore Ordinance from 1966, together with the carry-forward benefit from previous years to which they were entitled under the States of Malaya legislation. Under clause 27, provision is made for assessment on a continuing basis in Singapore from 1966 of State of Malaya taxpayers deriving income in Singapore. Provision is also made under clause 28 for the carry-forward of the benefit of the loss provision where States of Malaya taxpayers continue to derive income in Singapore and have accrued losses previously agreed in the States of Malaya under the combined income provisions. In addition to these immediate relieving measures, more detailed provisions will be provided in a Double Taxation Agreement with Malaysia. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Lim Kim San]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.28 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is two-fold. In the first place, the Bill seeks to implement certain recommendations of the Prisons Inquiry Commission which was appointed in November 1959 and, among other things, recommended reform of the existing legislation dealing with destitute persons. Under the Vagrancy Ordinance (Chapter 125), no distinction is made between destitute persons and petty criminals, who are all broadly classified as vagrants and may he committed to a house of detention maintained by the Prisons Department in the precincts of a prison under the provisions of the Ordinance. The Prisons Inquiry Commission recommended in its report published in 1960 that no person should be committed to a prison because of destitution, that destitute persons should be kept in welfare homes run by the Social Welfare Department as part of the State's Welfare services, and that their admission to these homes should be through the Social Welfare Department and not normally through a court sentence, as is the present practice under the Vagrancy Ordinance. These recommendations have been accepted by the Government in the White Paper on the Commission's Report (Cmd. No. 30 of 1961), which was presented to the Legislative Assembly on 27th October, 1961. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill accordingly amends the Vagrancy Ordinance by excluding destitute persons from the definition of vagrants, so that that Ordinance will in future apply only to petty criminals - as distinct from purely destitute persons - who may, under the provisions of that Ordinance, be committed to varying terms of imprisonment. The Bill also deletes Part II of the Vagrancy Ordinance relating to the setting up of a house of detention which will no longer be required on the establishment of welfare homes for destitute persons under the provisions of this Bill. Transitional provisions are also made for persons at present detained in the house of detention under the provisions of the Vagrancy Ordinance to be admitted to a welfare home after due inquiry by the Director of Social Welfare. Secondly, the Bill will enable the Government to deal more effectively with the beggars problem which has lately been aggravated by the activities of professional beggars, including many from across the Causeway who have found it extremely profitable to come to Singapore to beg for alms. As hon. Members are aware, the Social Welfare Department has been engaged for some time in a campaign to clear our streets of these beggars, especially the professional beggars, and some statistics may be of interest to the House. Since the beginning of the campaign in November last year, the Department has dealt with some 450 beggars. Of these, some 70 or so were found to have come from across the Causeway - some from as far north as Kota Bahru and Alor Star - and arrangements were made to send them back to their country of origin. Those of Singapore origin, who were found to be genuinely destitute and without relatives or friends to care for them, were given shelter in the Social Welfare Department's homes. The Bill gives power to the Department of Social Welfare to deal directly with the beggars problem, and will therefore enable more effective and expeditious action to be taken. The Bill provides for the establishment of welfare homes for the care and rehabilitation of destitute persons, and empowers the Director of Social Welfare to require destitute persons to reside in welfare homes after due inquiry. There is also provision for any destitute person to be admitted to a welfare home on his own application. Alterations have been made to one of the Department's existing homes - the Bushey Park Home - to adapt it for the reception of destitute persons. This Home will be the first to be set up as a welfare home under the provisions of the Bill. And as the need arises, other appropriate homes run by the Department will be similarly adapted and used for the purposes of the Bill. Under the Bill, any person who has been admitted to a welfare home may be discharged to relatives who satisfy the Superintendent of their ability to support or care for the person to be discharged. Where the destitute person who has been admitted to a welfare home is not a Singapore citizen, there is provision for him to be repatriated to his country of origin. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Inche Othman bin Wok]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The grafting of healthy human tissues to replace diseased parts of a human body has been fairly common medical practice for some time. And one of the most common, and also the most successful transplantation operations at the present time, is that of corneal grafting, where the corneal graft is obtained from the eye of a recently dead person. Recently, more spectacular transplantations have been attempted although with less successful results. For example, there have been transplantations of organs, like kidneys, from one person to another, and there are reasonable hopes that such operations may become more commonplace and successful in the near future. There have also been attempts to use tissues from animals and even of inert materials such as plastics, for replacement and transplantation operations, but the main source of transplant material, in the foreseeable future, will continue to be that of human tissues. So far, there is no legislation in existence in Singapore whereby a person may "will" his body or part of his body to doctors for use as transplant material. Such a deficiency in our laws has somewhat hindered medical progress in Singapore for the more extensive use of tissue transplants. As a result, many blind persons in Singapore, for example, unfortunately have to remain blind, because of the lack of sufficient corneas which can be willed for their benefit. This Bill, therefore, serves to bring light and happiness to those now doomed to a life of eternal darkness and unhappiness by enabling persons who are prepared to "will" their eyes, on their death, for use on suitable persons. However, advantage has been taken for the Bill to be drafted for even wider general application and is not being limited only to the transplantation of corneal grafts. The Bill makes it possible to use parts of bodies of deceased persons for medical treatment, i.e. for transplantation of any tissue or organ, as and when such operations can be successfully performed in Singapore. The Bill also allows for the post-mortem examination of bodies and of its dissection for medical education and research. Clause 2 of the Bill stipulates an important safeguard that removal of parts of the body for therapeutic purposes or for medical education or research can only be performed, if the person, before his death, had expressly given permission either orally, or in writing, and which has been witnessed by two or more persons, before such procedures may be carried out, after his death. Clause 3 of the Bill empowers any person who has lawful possession of the body of a deceased person to authorise, in writing, the use of the body for therapeutic purposes or for medical education or research or for post-mortem examination of the body, if he has reason to believe, after making such enquiries as may be practicable, that the deceased person had not previously expressed an objection to his body being tampered with after his death or that the surviving spouse or relative of the deceased does not object to such body being so dealt with. Clause 4 provides for the contingency whereby the Director of Medical Services may authorise, in writing, the use of the body or parts thereof for use as indicated in the Bill, if the body of a deceased person has not been claimed for more than 24 hours from a hospital, or other institution which is maintained on public funds. However, clause 5 ensures that the authority of the Coroner to direct the post-mortem examination of a body under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code is not to be prejudiced in any way by the operation of this Bill. This is, therefore, a very comprehensive Bill to permit the use of human tissues for purpose of grafting and for the dissection of human bodies for medical examination, education or research. It is essential that this important piece of legislation be introduced to permit such work, which at present is being done on a limited scale, without legal coverage or proper safeguards which are now to be rectified by the provisions of clause 6 of the Bill. Finally, there is the additional safeguard that the person entrusted with cremation or interment of a body is specifically debarred from authorising the removal of parts of the body and post-mortem examination of it. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Yong Nyuk Lin]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

3.47 p.m. Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Singapore's present population is over 1.8 million and our population density is more than 8,000 persons per square mile, certainly a very over-crowded little island State! Our crude birth rate is around 32 per thousand, which is much too high. The fact is that too many children are being brought into the world each year at the great cost of their mothers' health, and also far too many bread-winners of families are finding it difficult to feed and clothe adequately the many extra children. Regrettably, many women in sheer desperation over innumerable child-bearing over the years are resorting to illegal abortion, as a way out. This is evidenced by nearly 500 patients being admitted to Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital each year in serious condition, known as "abortion with sepsis" and which is most likely the result of unsuccessful attempts at induced abortions. The number of illegal abortions each year is conservatively estimated by people in the know to be in the region of thousands! In order, therefore, to liberate our women from the burden of bearing and raising an unnecessarily large number of children, to lighten the burden of many bread-winners, and to reduce the nefarious activities of ruthless professional abortionists, Government accordingly published a White Paper on Family Planning as part of its second Five-Year Development Plan (1966-70) of Singapore - Cmd. Paper 22 of 1965 dated 27th September, 1965. This Plan envisages that over a period of five years a target of 180,000 eligible married women, of the fertile age group (15 to 44 years) would be motivated voluntarily and actively to participating in family planning. The total cost to Government for this Five-Year Plan is estimated at $1 million. Action on a national basis is required to cope with the present problem of uncontrolled increase of population which, if left unchecked, may well hinder and even to nullify present great and strenuous efforts at economic expansion by the Government and its people. The chief purpose of this Bill is to provide the legal means whereby the Five-Year Plan for Family Planning could be given effective direction and execution. If this Family Planning programme succeeds - and we are determined that it should - besides increasing welfare and happiness for hundreds of thousands, Singapore's future annual net increase in population in the 1970's can be brought down to one-half of its present rate, and thus be brought in line with the prevailing rates of population increase now found in the prosperous and advanced countries of the world. Clause 3 provides for the formal constitution of a body corporate to be known as "the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board" as recommended in the White Paper on Family Planning. The Board is to have a maximum membership of 15 members, vide clause 4. The Board represents a broad spectrum of interests, seven are ex-officio members (five representing the Ministry of Health and the other two from the Statistics and Social Welfare Departments respectively) and eight others are non-officials, two of whom would represent the University of Singapore and up to six others from members of the public who are deeply interested in family planning and population control activities. The usual powers are given to the Board under clause 6 to employ such stall as may be deemed necessary for the effective carrying out of its work and programme. An important provision of the Bill is clause 11 which provides that any person, body or association now carrying out family planning work in Singapore has to be registered with the Board. Specific exemption, however, is made for medical practitioners arid pharmacists who are registered under the Medical Registration Ordinance (Cap. 191) and Registration of Pharmacists Ordinance (Cap. 198) respectively. The Board may also register any body, association or person carrying out family planning work with or without conditions. This is necessary as the Board is to he the sole agency for the promotion and dissemination of information pertaining to family planning in Singapore and it must ensure that such a valuable social programme is not to be exploited commercially or otherwise by any other agencies. It is pertinent for me to mention, at this stage, of the prominent work of two voluntary organisations now conducting family planning activities in Singapore. Firstly, the Singapore Family Planning Association, which was established as far back as 1949, or 16 years ago, and at whose request, Government was asked to take over 90 per cent of their present responsibilities on family planning. Arising out of this move by the Singapore Family Planning Association, the White Paper on Family Planning thus came into being. Secondly, the South-East Asia and Oceanic Regional Centre of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and to which Federation the Singapore Family Planning Association is also a member thereof. This Regional Centre of I.P.P.F. serves as a Training Centre for family planning workers for the territories ranging from Fiji in the east to Burma to the west of Singapore. Although these two voluntary organisations would be required to register with the Board under the provisions of clause 11 of the Bill, the closest co-operation with these two agencies will be maintained, as representatives from each of these two agencies have been sounded to serve as members of the Board under the provisions of clause 4 (1) (i), and I am pleased to state that these invitations have been accepted. There is also a provision under clause 12 for the Minister, if he deems it necessary in the public interest to do so, to order the Board to take over the functions pertaining to family planning and the assets and property of any body or association which is required either to be registered under the provisions of clause 11 of the Bill. Clause 13 spells out in detail the functions of the Board which covers family planning and population control programmes, and clause 17 provides for various penalties for any person who fails to comply with the various provisions of the Bill. The other clauses are mainly administrative in character. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Yong Nyuk Lin]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment: read a Third time and passed.

4.00 p.m.

I have received from Mr Lim Huan Boon, the Member for Bukit Merah, a letter dated 31st December, 1965, which was received by me at 3.50 this afternoon. He writes as follows: `I hereby tender my resignation as a Member of Parliament for the Constituency of Bukit Merah as from the date thereof.' He also gave his reasons for his resignation which advanced into a number of paragraphs. As I have on a previous occasion said that the Speaker is not involved in the reasons for the resignation of a Member, in this instance also, it is no part of my business. My duty is to inform the House of his resignation and that the seat is now vacant. I take it that appropriate action will be taken.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." -[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Four o'clock p.m.