Hansard, 1968-05-22

Under the provisions of clause 2 (d) of Article 30 of the Constitution of Singapore, I have granted permission to the following Members to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament for the periods stated: - Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar), Prime Minister - from 22nd May to 4th June, 1968. Mr Sia Kah Hui (Upper Serangoon), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour - from 3rd to 16th June, 1968. (P. COOMARASWAMY) Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

30 p.m.

"to amend the Pensions Ordinance, 1956 (No. 22 of 1956)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second and Third Readings read. 2.32 p.m.

MrSpeaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to provide a supplementary estimate of $300,000 to meet the administrative expenditure of the new Bases Economic Conversion Department which has been set up early this year. This department will provide a central point in the Government machinery with which the British Government can liaise in all problems relating to the run-down of the United Kingdom bases. The Bases Economic Conversion Department will have, as its main functions, to conduct negotiations with the British Government on mitigatory aid to overcome the effects of the rundown of the British bases, and on the taking over of lands and other assets relinquished by the British Services. The department will also negotiate with the British Government and other interested parties on the conversion of the facilities, such as the naval dockyard, air bases and workshops, to civilian management and commercial use. The department has also been entrusted with the responsibility of organising the training, re-training and possibly re-deploying of workers discharged from the bases. The supplementary estimate of $300,000 to be provided will cover the 1968 expenditure for Personal Emoluments, $160,000; Other Charges Annually Recurrent, $92,510; and Other Charges Special Expenditure, $47,490. The amount has been advanced from the Contingencies Fund in view of the urgency to establish the Bases Economic Conversion Department. The Supplementary Supply Bill is to clear this advance in accordance with clause (2) of Article 87 of the Constitution of Singapore. Sir, I beg to move.

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

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 Reading read. 2.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies will be the first of its kind to be established in this part of the world. It will be a centre of research into the history, the people, and the cultures of Southeast Asian countries. The Institute will have no teaching functions and will not, therefore, duplicate the work of the existing institutions of higher learning. Its functions will be pure research and nothing else. To provide the research material a library will be built up which will eventually be one of the best in Asia on Southeast Asian affairs. Internationally known authorities on South-east Asia, both local and from overseas, will be appointed as research fellows of the Institute to conduct research. Local graduates of promise will be sent to established centres of Southeast Asian Studies in overseas universities to do post-graduate degrees before joining the staff of the Institute. In this way it is hoped that the Institute will become a repository of scholarly information on as well as a generator of analytical studies of Southeast Asian affairs. The research activities of the Institute will increase our understanding of our neighbours and help us to play our role more effectively in this part of the world. This Bill seeks to establish the Institute as an autonomous body governed by a 24-member Board of Trustees. The Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and four members are to be appointed by the President. Three other members are to be appointed by the President on the nomination of such professional bodies as the President may consult. Other members are to be appointees of the Chambers of Commerce, local foundations and universities with the Director of the Institute as an ex-officio member. The Board will, therefore, represent a wide spectrum of interests: academic, professional, commercial, charitable and governmental. It will be invested with all such powers as may be necessary to enable it to carry out its functions, including the power to approve the budget and research programme of the Institute. The day-to-day administration of the Institute will be the responsibility of a ten-member Executive Committee headed by the Director who will be the chief administrative and academic officer of the Institute. Three members of this committee will be appointed by the Board of Trustees from amongst its own members. Three other members will be staff members of the Institute appointed by the Director, and the remaining three members will be appointed by the Minister. The Bill provides for Government grants-in-aid to be made by the Minister to the Institute from time to time. It is hoped, however, that substantial financial aid will be forthcoming from foundations and from private individuals. Accordingly, provision is made for all donations to the Institute to be exempted from income tax. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.41 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support this Bill. Singapore is in the centre of Southeast Asia. All along we have been in close contact with our neighbouring countries in all fields of activities, such as trade, communications, shipping and aviation. These neighbouring countries have been making use of this place as a most convenient transit centre. We occupy a most important position in Southeast Asia. But we also realise that Southeast Asia is a very complicated area. The Vietnamese people are suffering from the ravages of war. Other countries are also suffering many calamities. They have different historical, political and social backgrounds. The people of these countries have different faiths, beliefs, creeds, customs and traditions. In order to understand the religious, cultural, political and social backgrounds and the conditions of our neighbouring countries and their people, it is necessary to set up the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies which can make a thorough study of all these matters. The emphasis in international relationships at present is on regional co-operation, either political or economic. It is in their mutual interest if they seek a wider and higher level of co-operation. The setting up of this Institute, therefore, is very necessary and timely at this juncture. If my memory does not play me false, I recollect that our scholarly Minister for Education has mentioned earlier in this House about the setting up of such an Institute as is now envisaged under this Bill. If action had been taken earlier, the Institute would already have been set up. I would now like to ask the Minister a few questions. What work has this Institute done so far? Has the Government allotted any sum of money to the Institute to carry on with its work? Where is the Institute and who is responsible for it? 2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there would seem to be many factors in favour of setting up an agency like the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies which this Bill seeks to establish. It would be fair to say that our well-being, if not our survival, is related, to some extent, to the destiny of the countries in the region of which (to quote a most recent document) we are the fulcrum. It is to our advantage to encourage systematic garnering of more and more critical knowledge of the countries around us. It is appropriate for us to conduct regional studies in the way we propose to do. Singapore's strategic location makes it an eminently desirable and suitable spot to become not only a centre, but the Centre for Southeast Asian Studies. A successful Singapore Institute of Southeast Asian Studies will certain1y reflect favourably on our national prestige, where previously we have had to note the existence of South-east Asian Studies centres in exotic places like Yale; Harvard: Washington - Washington, Missouri; Canberra; Hull; and London where I believe South-east Asian Studies comes under the generous umbrella of the School of African and Oriental Studies. It is good to envisage numbers of scholars, not only from the region, but also from the Far West, that is, from Europe and perhaps Africa and from the Far East, like San Francisco on the west coast of the United States, coming to Singapore to share their knowledge. But there is also the practical advantage that spreading knowledge of the region will result in more people with lay interests wanting to come to Singapore and to this region. And they will come here, Sir, not to seek the flesh-pots by which, alas, tourists are only too frequently beguiled, but to seek repast of a more intellectual kind. There are also other interesting and possibly profitable by-products. With improved and wider knowledge of the region, there may also be knowledgeable interest in the possibilities of investment and economic development in the region. Political and international decisions in other countries may also derive from a more informed public opinion. There is some testimony to the sad condition of uniformed public opinion about South-east Asia in far-away countries. Too often have our emissaries abroad been asked if Singapore is situated in South China. May I now mention one or two points relating to the development of the proposed Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. If initially the director of this Institute be a visitor to this region, a pundit so to speak from abroad, in other words, an expatriate, could we initiate steps as soon as possible to ensure that we have a director who is indigenous to the region, preferably a Singaporean? I make this point because I feel, and this feeling has been to some extent substantiated in conversations with one or two people, that scholars in this region would be more ready to establish rapport with somebody whom they feel may be more spiritually sympathetic with their aspirations. Whether we, in our prudent objectivity, like it or not, there are people in the region whose sense of nationalism has been so exacerbated by their experience of recent history that they even carry the fear of so-called neo-colonialism into the academic sphere. Another point I would like to make is that this Institute could also provide opportunities for the study of languages in the region. I notice that the erection, equipment and maintenance of libraries feature in the provisions of the Institute. This would certainly involve the acquisition of local materials, however poorly organised the local book trade of the region may be. In fact, this aspect may make the problems of translation into a lingua franca more urgent. I am sure the very latest devices will be used in the rapid study of local languages. Presumably, the erection of laboratories mentioned in the Bill would refer to language laboratories. Yet another point is the possible extension of the resources and facilities of the proposed Institute to a wider audience than that consisting only of professional scholars and their ancillaries. Perhaps some of the members of the general public in Singapore, who are suitably inclined, could benefit from the Institute's activities - perhaps through seminars, public lectures, lecture courses and the like. The general adult education potential of the Institute should not be ignored. I know that the publishing of books and other publications features among the provisions of the proposed Institute. But a layman like myself may find deterring the presence of footnotes, learned annotations, and similar rubrics which formidably characterise the work of scholars. It would be useful if books popularising area studies could also be forthcoming, with the contents of these books not in any way losing in accuracy and scholarship by the simplicity of their presentation. Lastly, and as a relevant corollary to all I have just said, could encouragement be given to area studies being actively extended in our universities? I say this because recently I received an enquiry about the possibility of someone following a programme of area studies in the University of Singapore in a certain discipline. I shall not mention the discipline concerned because of the fear of having to make a reference to a specific department in the University. I found that area studies were not conducted in this particular discipline. Relations between the Institute and our universities would be more productive if area studies are encouraged as much as possible in our universities. I would like to underline my support for this Bill. 2.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, much as I appreciate the establishment of an Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, my appreciation is imprecise. There has been an inadequate amount of publicity of the possibilities of this Institute. From the explanatory statement appended to the Bill and from the tenor of the whole Bill, I am supposed to be persuaded into believing that there is abundant research to be done on Southeast Asia and on all matters appertaining to Southeast Asia. I not only hope, but I can even believe that there is. But what I feel is important is that the research intended should be contemporary in nature. It should be research into fields of knowledge which are directly relevant and contributory to' the many facets of our national growth at this crucial stage of our history. I hope that the Institute will produce findings which can be translated into added verve and vitality for our society and not only findings which are meant for the academician and the pedagogue. 2.57 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, like the three hon. Members who have spoken before me, I wish to support the Institute of South-east Asian Studies Bill. I appreciate the interest and initiative taken by the Member for Sembawang in speaking on almost every Bill that has come to this Parliament.

One matter Mr Teong missed was to say that the Institute will increase employment opportunities in Singapore!

But I regret to inform him, Sir, that he was speaking on the issue without referring to the contents of the Bill. He asked the-Minister for Education whether the Bill will involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure. If he had read the last two sentences in page 9 of the Bill, he would have got the answer. The introduction of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies Bill will serve as an impetus and a guide to those who have been looking forward to the establishment of such an Institute to do research into the various aspects of this region. The establishment of a research centre, especially a centre to study the problems confronting Southeast Asia, is, vital for Singapore. Singapore realises her significance in the region and is taking cautious steps to promote regional co-operation. Such an Institute not only provides an academic research centre for our intellectuals but it also helps to resolve the problems of Southeast Asia by coming up with methods and answers. Sir, in my maiden speech in this House I touched on the problems of this region. I pointed out that Southeast Asia has all along been the centre of attraction of the world. This is not because this area is rich and strong but because it has been recognised and considered as one of the weakest areas in the world. As we know, most of the countries in this region are newly emerging countries. We are all classified either within the economic scope of under-developed countries or developed countries. Southeast Asia has been looked upon as a region which is not able to mobilise its political and economic resources to bargain with the more advanced countries or super powers on an equal footing. One can hardly deny that all these factors were created by human beings in past decades when the political situation in the world was entirely different. Now that most of the newly emerging countries in Southeast Asia are struggling to achieve progress and the ultimate aim of equal status with the advanced countries in the world, we must find ways and means to counter these prevailing factors. What are the problems confronting the countries in Southeast Asia? What are the factors hampering the progress of countries in this region? How can these problems be solved? What measures are ideal to solve these problems? All these questions can be closely studied by a critical examination of the nature of the conflicts and disputes that occur in our midst if we have a Research Centre. Hence the establishment of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies which will shoulder the task of enlightening us with a clearer picture of the problems in this region in the crucial 1970s. If one speaks on the problems of Southeast Asia without pointing out the root or complexity of the problems and the methods to solve them, one is just being impractical. We must find out the true facts of the problems and the fundamental factors causing such problems before we can solve them. In this respect, Sir, I am of the opinion that the establishment of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies will be able to make an immense contribution. Let us look into the historical background of the newly emerging countries of Southeast Asia. One struggle comes after another. These struggles, whether of a bloody or peaceful nature, have no ultimate aim. These occurrences in a country, whether of an advantageous or a disadvantageous nature, will certainly influence the economy and the social pattern of another country because we are all situated within the same region and surrounded by the same waters. Sir, the countries in Southeast Asia have gone through similar stages when struggling for their independence. We were all once upon a time colonies of the big powers. We all fought against colonialism to achieve independence. Nevertheless, it would not be untrue to say that after independence some countries still carry on on the same basis as their former colonial masters did, with their direct experiences of societies in the west. Some countries have even turned to dependence on guarantees from the big powers for survival. Sir, in the midst of these complexities, it is essential to study all affairs and matters appertaining to Southeast Asia. In this multi-racial region, besides having gone through the same struggle for political independence as other countries, we too have similarities in the social structure, behaviour of people, culture, religion, etc. So if differences of interests which arise within this region are unresolved, they could ultimately threaten the peace and progress of this region. On the basis that the countries in Southeast Asia are inter-dependent on one another in this new era, each country must develop regional initiative in economic co-operation and mutual assistance and understanding. The establishment of such an Institute emphasises the importance we place on our own region and the importance of understanding our immediate neighbours. Through participation with intellectuals, scholars, teachers, etc, of other countries around us, we are able to know our neighbours better and they will understand us better. Sir, co-operation is a necessary ingredient for progress. You may agree with me that with the establishment of this Institute, we are paving a more radical approach towards cultural and educational co-operation with countries in this region. Although the establishment of such an organisation will involve the Government in extra financial expenditure, I consider this expenditure to be necessary if we are to become more vital and creative. In addition, I am happy to note that in clauses 16 and 17 of the Bill, the Board is given power to accept gifts on behalf of the Institute, and it is also provided that gifts to the Institute shall be exempt from income tax. I am confident that such provisions in the Bill will encourage more aid and assistance from the general public to ensure the success of this Institute. Sir, looking at this Bill, I am confident that it will receive acclaim and support from those who are interested in problems concerning our nation and Southeast Asia. 3.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that the proposed Institute has evoked among our Back-benchers such a lively interest in Southeast Asian affairs. This awareness that the countries around us have a bearing on our development and our survival, certainly augurs well for our country. I do not propose to reply in detail to all the comments made by Members of this House, as they are all in support of the Bill to establish this proposed Institute. However, a number of questions have been raised by the Member for Sembawang and I propose to answer some of them. The Director of the Institute has been appointed and he will assume duty probably from the 1st of July this year. He is Prof. Harry J. Benda, Professor of History, Yale University, and now con currently Acting Director of the Southeast Asian Studies Programme in Yale University. The University of Singapore has lent the Institute one of its large bungalows within its grounds. Alterations and additions are being carried out to this bungalow and work is expected to be completed in the first week of June. This will be the temporary home of the Institute until it moves to the three top floors of the new University of Singapore library building which is planned for completion in roughly two years' time. The Government has set aside a sum of $262,000 in this year's Budget to expand the Institute. The Member for Katong has raised the point that the Director should as far as possible be a local man. I am sure the Government is quite alive to this problem. If a suitable local candidate is available he will be appointed. As for the area study programmes to be carried out in our universities, 1 am sure the Minister for Science and Technology will look into this problem. Now that there is leadership in the University of Singapore, I am sure there will be a revival of research activities in Southeast Asian affairs in the university.

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 Ong Pang Boon]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Subsection (1) of section 5 of the 'Singapore Telephone Board Ordinance provides that the Board shall consist of (a) a Chairman, (b) a Deputy Chairman and (c) five other members, or a total membership of seven members. The Bill now before the House seeks to amend this subsection in the Ordinance in order to increase the number of members of the Singapore Telephone Board (other than the Chairman and Deputy Chairman) from five to seven, or a total membership of nine members. During the past two years there has been quite a substantial increase in the Board's activities to cope with the rising demand for telephones. It was originally estimated that for the 5-year period, 1966-1970, there would be an average growth rate of 8 per cent, or nearly 30,000 direct exchange lines would have to be installed to meet the public's demand for telephones. But the actual number of direct lines installed during the years 1966 and 1967 was 5,800 and 8,400 respectively, which gives an average rate of growth of 12 per cent over two years, or 50 per cent higher than the original estimated rate of growth of 8 per cent. In fact, the present waiting list for telephones is 2,400, and with the Government's development plans being further accelerated, the demand for telephones must therefore increase still further and the Board has no alternative but to revise upward its plans again. To meet this increasing demand, the Board has set aside $15.6 million for development this year, and another $16 million for next year, thus making a total of over $31 million for the two years on development programmes and capital expenditure in building new exchanges, laying new cables and installing new equipment. Besides the new 50,000 exchange lines now under construction at the junction of Exeter Road/Devonshire Road to meet the rapidly growing hotel and business sector along the Orchard Road area, the Board has plans to erect another two exchanges in the near future, one in the Crawford area and perhaps another small exchange to serve the Ama Keng area. With the increase in the Board's activities, there has been a corresponding increase in the duties and responsibilities of the Board members. It is considered that the business of the Board has reached a stage to warrant an enlarged membership, which is the sole aim of this Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.25 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to support the Bill moved by the Minister which seeks to increase the membership of the Board from seven to nine members. It is time that we enlarged the membership of the Board so that it would be more efficient in achieving the objectives as outlined by the President in his speech in this House. As explained by the Minister for Communications, the work of the Telephone Board is increasing day by day and this Bill is necessary for the development of telephone communications in the Republic. However, besides increasing the membership of the Board, the Minister should also pay attention to the interests of the Board workers. He should appoint another representative of the Board workers to sit on the Board. At present there is only one representative of the staff of the Telephone Board sitting on the Board. If one more representative is added, I am sure the workers of the Telephone Board will have more confidence in the Board. They will co-operate in achieving their objective of being more efficient and thus improving the economy of the Republic. With the introduction of the new Employment Bill, there will be doubts and fears in the minds of the workers. Therefore, with two representatives of the staff members sitting on the Board, the interests of the S.T.B, workers will be ensured. I would also like to draw the attention of the Minister to the need for erecting more telephone booths in the Republic. He should give this matter his serious consideration. There have been many applications for the erection of telephone booths in the rural areas, but they have not been entertained. Applications for the installation of telephones in private premises have also not been entertained due to lack of facilities. There are areas with cables but without appliances and equipment. There are also areas -

I think the Member is straining the rules of relevance to bring what he is saying within the ambit of this Bill.

(In Malay): There is another matter to which I hope members of the Board will give serious attention. I hope they can formulate a policy on the use of public telephones in booths in the interests of maintaining an efficient service. At present a person can use a public telephone by paying ten cents and he can speak for as long as he likes. There are booths where people make use of the phone for hours, especially when two lovers are talking. This prevents others from using the telephone, and it can be serious if the matter is important or there is an emergency. In order to prevent the misuse of telephones in booths, I suggest that a time limit be imposed on the use of the telephone. For example, on paying ten cents a person can use the telephone for only 10 to 15 minutes. Mr Speaker, Sir, with the increase in the membership of the Board from seven to nine, the Board should be able to think of more facilities which can be given to the public and see to it that these will not be misused. 3.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker,, Sir, of the present seven members on the-Board there is, as stated by the Member for Kampong Kembangan, already one representative from the N.T.U.C. I am afraid that his request for an additional workers' representative is not acceptable' to me because, in my view, one workers' representative should be more than adequate for the purposes of workers' representation. In fact, I found to my surprise that although the Singapore Telephone Board is such a large corporation with a capital of $20 million and a general reserve of $25 million, there is not even a Ministry representative on the 7-member Board. So I have decided that of the two new members who will be sitting on the Singapore Telephone Board, one will be a Government representative who will keep an eye on the large funds that are being disbursed in this organisation. All the' other members are non-Government members, and I think it should be so. This very important organisation, which comes under the general heading of Telecommunications, is a monopoly at present, because there is no other competing telephone company to offer its services to the public. I would like-members of the public to participate in the supervision of this organisation and I look forward to appointing a non-Government member - perhaps another accountant or an economist - to serve on the Board. This will have to be done very soon. As for the request to increase the number of telephone booths, this matter is receiving attention. All requests from the Urban and Rural Services Committee come up for consideration. But I wish to state that there are over 750 public telephone booths throughout the island and I am given to understand that they are frequently used. An hon. Member: Many of these telephones are out of order.

If the telephones are out of order, they will be attended to. I agree that a number of would-be subscribers have not been able to obtain telephones. I have indicated that there is already a waiting list of 2,400 applications. This is a matter which will have to be put right. I shall be giving the Singapore Telephone Board my own personal attention. I visited it a few days ago. I think I can assure the Member for Kampong Kembangan that there will be increased activity in the Board hereafter.

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.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to broaden the scope of library material so as to include not only books but also audio-visual and primary sources material. The National Library collection will henceforth be considerably expanded with the new sources of library material. Thus the total collection will better reflect the Republic's creative output and heritage. In discharging its responsibilities on the national level, the National Library of the Republic will concentrate its efforts in planning for all types of library services so as to give every citizen an opportunity to read and to ensure that the nation's entire creative output will be recorded and preserved for future generations. The National Library will also provide up-to-date information for research workers and business, industrial and other sectors. On an international level, the National Library will play an important role by facilitating library loans to and from other nations and the exchange of library material with other countries. There is also provision in the Bill for the National Library Board to make recommendations for the training of library staff. The general object of this Bill is therefore to ensure that the National Library will give better services to the people of Singapore. 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; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.40 p.m.

Before I call upon the Minister for Social Affairs to deal with the Hindu Endowments Bill, I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members to a certain point. From the Order Paper, it will be seen that this Bill and three other Bills will be referred to Select Committee. I think it may be advantageous for me to draw the attention of Members of the House to Standing Order 68, the first paragraph of which reads: 'Any Committee to which a Bill is committed shall not discuss the principle of the Bill but only its details.' Therefore, if hon. Members wish to express any views on the principle behind the four Bills that are going to Select Committee, the time and place to do it is here today and not in Select Committee. Inche Othman. 3.41 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill has been under consideration for a long time and its provisions have been discussed with members of the Hindu Advisory Board and the Secretary of the Muslim and Hindu Endowments Board. The advice of the Attorney-General has also been obtained on the detailed provisions of the Bill, and the present Bill incorporates such suggestions as are reasonable and in keeping with the scheme and purpose of the Bill. The purpose of this Bill is as indicated in the explanatory statement, to set up a new Hindu Endowments Board to look after Hindu religious and charitable endowments and to take over such Hindu endowments as are at present administered by the Muslim and Hindu Endowments Board appointed under the Muslim and Hindu Endowments Ordinance. With the enactment of the Administration of Muslim Law Act, 1966, which will come into operation soon, the Muslim and Hindu Endowments Board will cease to have any control over Muslim endowments. The Bill, in the main, re-enacts the provisions of the Muslim and Hindu Endowments Ordinance but omits references to Muslim endowments. Certain new provisions, however, have been included. I will now touch on the more important of these provisions in the Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that no person shall be appointed a member of the Board unless he is a Hindu and a citizen of Singapore. This is in keeping with our new status as an independent and sovereign country. The same clause provides that members of the Board are to be appointed for a period of three years and will be eligible for re-appointment. But no member may be appointed for more than two consecutive terms. At present, a member appointed to the Board can continue to serve on the Board until he is removed by the Minister or resigns or dies. A limitation of appointment to a maximum of two consecutive terms will enable new members to be brought into the Board. Clause 9 of the Bill stipulates the conditions under which the Minister may revoke the appointment of a member of the Board if his conduct is, in the opinion of the Minister, such as to bring, discredit upon the Board, or if he becomes unable to carry out his duties properly, or if the Minister considers it desirable in the public interest to revoke the appointment. No such conditions are provided for the removal of any member of the Board in the existing Ordinance. Clause 18 of the Bill requires members of the committee of management, appointed by the Board with the' approval of the Minister to manage an endowment, to be citizens of Singapore. Such members shall be appointed for' two years and shall be eligible for re-appointment. But again no member shall be appointed for more than two consecutive terms. Clause 19 of the Bill empowers the Board to raise funds by means of' voluntary subscriptions or contributions for the performance of its duties and the-discharge of its obligations. No such power exists in the existing Ordinance. Clause 28 of the Bill makes it necessary for the Secretary of the Board to exhibit a copy of the annual report and accounts of the Board in each temple administered by the Board. Hitherto, such reports and accounts are required only to be published in the Gazette. As the Government Gazette may not be readily available to all Hindus attending their temples, the exhibition of the annual report and accounts at the temple premises will enable those Hindus who attend the temples to know the activities of the Board. Clause 34 of the Bill expressly prohibits the Board or any committee of management from permitting any temple administered by the Board or property belonging to any endowment to be used for political purposes. This provision is to ensure that activities in temples administered by the Board will not give rise to political controversy. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.47 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly support the Bill. Before the coming into being of this Bill, all property belonging to Hindu endowments was vested in the Muslim and Hindu Endowments Board which was set up in the British colonial era. With the passage of time, we found discrepancies as a result of the changed conditions in the Republic. We naturally need some changes. I consider this Bill to be very desirable. The Hindu Endowments Board will be set up to administer Hindu religious and charitable endowments. The members of the Board must be Hindus as well as citizens of Singapore. No member, however, can dominate the Board's affairs for a prolonged period, unlike in the past when a certain group of members could dominate Hindu affairs with their autocratic policies. With the passage of the Bill, every member is allowed to serve on the Board for not more than three years. This is more democratic. I thank the Minister for Social Affairs for bringing this Bill into this House.

Inche Othman, I take it that you do not want to reply?

No, Sir, except to thank the Member for Anson for his kind words.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection." - [Inche Othman Bin Wok].

Order for Second Reading read. 3.49 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The main purpose of this Bill is to incorporate the Singapore Council of Social Service. The Council, which is a registered society under the Societies Ordinance, was established in December 1958 to co-ordinate the work of all voluntary welfare organisations in Singapore. It has contributed much in welfare work in the past ten years of its existence, especially during times of fire, flood, and other calamities. In recognition of its past services and the planned expansion of its future activities, including the construction of the Singapore Social Service Centre, the time is now opportune to incorporate the Singapore Council of Social Service by legislation so as to accord it the status due to it. This is provided for in clause 3 of the Bill. Since the Council is already a going concern, clause 5 of the Bill provides for the transfer of all its assets and liabilities to the new corporate body. Clause 6 of the Bill provides for the composition of the Council which shall comprise a representative each of the 83 organisations as set out in the Schedule to the Bill. These 83 organisations are already represented in the existing Council. Power, however, is provided in clause 6 (2) of the Bill for the Minister to amend the Schedule on the advice of the Council or the Board of Management so as to enable new organisations that may be established to be represented in the Council, or delete such organisations which shall cease to operate as welfare or charitable organisations. Besides the representatives of the 83 organisations as set out in the Schedule to the Bill, clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill allow for two additional members in the Council as representatives of the associate members and two ex-officio members, and they are the Director of Social Welfare and the Head of the Department of Social Work and Social Administration, University of Singapore. The objects of the Council which are set out in clause 10 include the coordination of all voluntary welfare activities in Singapore, improvement of standards of welfare work and encouragement of welfare work in fields not covered by Government, initiation, organisation, assistance in schemes of social service, raising and administering funds and goods entrusted to it, as well as advising Government on legislation in fields of social welfare work or in furtherance of the objects of the Council. In carrying out these objects, power is provided in clause 10 (2) of the Bill for the Council to acquire and dispose of property, to receive monies and donations in kind, and to carry out such business as will further the objects of the Council. Power is also provided in the Bill for the setting up of a Council of Social Service Fund into which all monies received and raised shall be paid. The management of the Council of Social Service is invested in a Board of Management, the composition of which is provided in clause 13 of the Bill, which comprise a President, two Vice-Presidents, a General Secretary, a Treasurer and 11 other elected members including two ex-officio members - they are the Director of Social Welfare and the Head of the Department of Social Work and Social Administration, University of Singapore. The other clauses of the Bill are of a minor nature governing the procedure of meetings of the Board, setting out subscriptions which each member organisation shall pay as subscription per year, and the dissolution of the Council only by an Act of Parliament. The provisions of this Bill have been examined in detail and agreed to by the Singapore Council of Social Service. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.53 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Bill introduced by the Minister for Social Affairs. It is introduced in time to cope with the social welfare services which will be limited in expansion because of the increase in defence expenditure in the approaching crucial years ahead. The Minister for Social Affairs has promptly taken appropriate and practical steps to maintain and enhance the reputation that the social services in Singapore are acknowledged to be the best in the whole of South-east Asia. I am sure that all Members of the House will agree with me in my appreciation. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past, the Singapore Council of Social Service was in existence as a voluntary organised body formed by some social workers and civic-minded citizens who saw the need to co-ordinate whenever and where-ever possible the work of voluntary welfare bodies and to avoid duplication of their activities. In addition, they tried to encourage efforts in fields not presently covered either by voluntary workers or the Department of Social Welfare. Mr Speaker, Sir, the existing Council has done good work. Let me mention here one commendable and most striking example. On 13th February, 1959, when the Tiong Bahru fire rendered 5,000 persons homeless, the Council undertook the tremendous task of raising $700,000 within a month for the relief of the homeless. There were other fires and floods from time to time. In each case, the Council was able to raise funds and obtain relief for the victims at short notice. Mr Speaker, Sir, the praiseworthy welfare work done by the Council and other voluntary bodies in Singapore is a matter of great credit to the good people who are engaged in this work. They deserve our appreciation and thanks. The Minister for Social Affairs has correctly timed the introduction of this Bill to incorporate the Singapore Council of Social Service. It will undoubtedly help to strengthen and perfect the existing voluntary organisations or welfare bodies and will further benefit the people of Singapore. 3.59 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to say a few words in praise of the objects which this Bill is intended to achieve, in particular the promotion and publicity of voluntary welfare work. Many words of approbation have been uttered in this House in respect of various efforts and ventures, but not enough, in my opinion, has been uttered in respect of voluntary efforts. I take this opportunity to express my appreciation - and I can quite certainly say the appreciation of all Members of this House - of the efforts of all the voluntary workers in the Republic. Sir, the value of the effort, is not only in the function of its contribution, but more important still in its exemplariness of concern for the welfare of one's community and country. It is an effort generated by the altruism which I believe is a common human component of all our peoples, and the House should give more recognition to this altruism and accord it the commendation that it deserves. I am sure that the Council, as envisaged in this Bill, will succeed in co-ordinating voluntary efforts and improving standards of social activity and thereby I hope it will succeed in publicising its efforts and attracting more of the disinterested benevolence of our people. However, I notice that an unfortunate omission has been made in this Bill, that is the provision declaring that this is a council or institution of a public character for the purpose of exempting from income tax donations made to it. I would like to believe, Sir, that this Bill contemplates exempting donations to this institution from income tax. This has been omitted from this Bill. Perhaps when the Minister sums up he can enlighten us on this matter. 4.01 p.m.

(In Mandarin): This is a very good Bill which deserves our support. I give my full support to it. I hope the Member for Nee Soon will not say that he cannot support it. In my view, this Bill should have been introduced much earlier, so that all the voluntary organisations in Singapore could become members of this statutory body in order to improve the social services of our Republic. But it is not too late to introduce this Bill and we welcome it now. I would like to take this opportunity to associate myself with the last two Members who spoke in support of this Bill and in appreciation of the services rendered by the various voluntary organisations and their contributions to our nation. For example, these organisations have made great contributions in organising relief for the victims of outbreaks of fire and other kinds of calamity. They do this in a spirit of unselfishness and a sense of public-spiritedness. It is because of their contributions that the less fortunate members of our society are able to enjoy some of the comforts of life. They have thus the hope and the will to continue earning their livelihood. It goes without saying that the Singapore Government is always interested in the welfare services of the country. For example, we have given a lot of money by way of public assistance to the less fortunate members of our society. I remember that in 1966 the sum allotted for public assistance was about $9.6 million. In 1967 it was about $7 million. This money was disbursed to people who were suffering from chronic diseases, particularly those who suffered from tuberculosis, and to the unemployed. At the same time, we have also set up homes for the aged to look after old people and also homes for children to look after the helpless children of our Republic. All this goes to show the socialist spirit of our Government and the humanitarianism that we are seeking to establish. As a centre for social services, the Government has a great responsi bility, particularly in view of the accelerated withdrawal of the British troops by 1971. We will be faced with two problems, namely, economic and defence. Under these circumstances, we will of necessity require more voluntary organisations to step up their activities and thereby assist the Government in carrying out social services and also help solve the problems relating to these services. It is my earnest hope that the well-to-do and rich members of our society will be more interested in social services. I appeal to them to be more generous in their contributions to the social services of Singapore so that all the voluntary organisations and the Singapore Council of Social Service will have more money to carry out social service work. 4.05 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I rise in support of the Bill introduced by the Minister. However, there is one aspect of it which is regrettable. In clause 6, which relates to the constitution of the Council, there is no provision for a representative from the Association of Nanyang University Graduates. Since its establishment, this Association has made contributions to the welfare work of our Republic. But there is no provision in this Bill for a representative from the Association. This is a matter for regret and I do hope the Minister will include a representative from the Association of Nanyang University Graduates on the Council. 4.06 p.m.

Sir, first, I would like to thank all the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. On the question raised by the Member for Serangoon Gardens, I think he has got a point there and it will receive my attention. As for the question raised by the Member for Tiong Bahru, I do not see the name of the Association of Nanyang University Graduates included in the Schedule to the Bill. However, I will certainly look into the matter.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Singapore Council of Social Service Bill is, in your opinion, a hybrid Bill, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 64, I beg to move, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.09 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, those who were Members of the last Parliament will recall that this Bill, which is being re-introduced, was read for the First Time on 25th January this year, but lapsed on prorogation of Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, as a consequence of the success of our housing programme in re-housing over 400,000 people in modern housing estates, many of the older areas of the city have become available for redevelopment. In fact, redevelopment of these areas has been proceeding satisfactorily. The Government, however, considers it important that there should be maximum private participation in our urban redevelopment programme. To this end, private development tax concessions have been approved for development projects in some 20 designated areas in the city. These provide for exemption of property tax on vacant land during the period of construction and reduction of assessment rates from 36 per cent to 12 per cent over a period of 20 years on completion of a project. Tax concessions by themselves will not, however, bring about development if the landlord or the owner of the land is unable to obtain vacant possession from his tenants where such tenants take advantage of the protection against eviction afforded to them under the Control of Rent Ordinance to demand exhorbitant sums as a price for surrendering vacant possession to the landlord. In some instances, the landlords have refused to pay such excessive sums as a premium, as it were, for the development of their sites and, as a result, development has been unduly hampered and delayed in some areas which are ripe for redevelopment. Mr Speaker, Sir, as the law now stands, there are serious setbacks in the way of private investors who genuinely want to promote development in Singapore, and the Bill now before this House is designed to encourage and promote development in the private sector by enabling landlords of premises, which are at present protected and controlled by 'the Control of Rent Ordinance, to recover possession of these controlled premises for development purposes on payment of a reasonable compensation to the tenants. As it is the intention to refer this Bill to Select Committee in order that full benefit of public views, particularly on the compensation rates proposed, can be obtained, I shall merely touch on certain salient features of the Bill. The Bill provides, inter alia, for the Minister to designate certain areas in Singapore that are earmarked for development. A landlord of controlled premises in a designated area may apply to a Board, called the "Tenants' Compensation Board", for an order to recover possession of his controlled premises. The Board, before granting the application, is required to satisfy itself that the landlord has a genuine intention as well as the financial means to develop the area, that this plan for development has been approved by a public officer appointed by the Minister for the purpose, and that he would compensate dispossessed tenants and sub-tenants. If the Board grants the application, the landlord would have to give his tenants at least three months' notice to quit. To assist the Board in arriving at a fair and just assessment of compensation, the Bill lays down as guide lines minimum limits of compensation to be awarded which will vary according to the nature of the user of the controlled premises, that is to say, whether commercial or residential. It is considered that the formula that has been adopted offers a satisfactory approach in this matter. It is not claimed to be a perfect formula that will provide a ready answer to all the situations that the Board will be confronted with. If there is such a formula, we have been unable to devise it. The merit of the formula that has been adopted in clause 7 of the Bill is that, apart from its simplicity, it does confer upon the Board a great deal of flexibility in its determinations. Only experience gained in the working of this proposed legislation will show whether the formula adopted will assist the Board in carrying out the main objective of the Bill which is, as I have said, the promotion and encouragement of development in the private sector in certain designated areas in our Republic. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I state at this stage that any alternative proposals to the Select Committee on the compensation provisions as well as on any other provisions in this Bill, will be welcomed and will receive very careful consideration. The Tenants' Compensation Board's order for recovery of possession of controlled premises and an award of compensation will be final and conclusive and will also be enforceable against unauthorised persons on the premises; but the interests of tenants and sub-tenants are protected by a provision which imposes a duty on the Board to advise all interested parties of the proceedings before the Board, enabling them thus to be heard before the Board prior to the granting of an order for the possession of controlled premises. Should a landlord fail to compensate or fail to complete development within the period laid down in the Bill, the Government may compulsorily acquire the controlled premises. The Explanatory Statment to the Bill outlines in a general way the various provisions of the Bill. I commend this Bill to Members as a useful measure that should contribute to the planning and development of the city area and at the same time have the long-term effect of adding to its aesthetic attractions. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in full agreement with the spirit of the Bill as it is designed to encourage and promote development in the private sector in Singapore. It is the duty of every loyal citizen to co-operate and assist in the development of Singapore and, if need be, even to make sacrifices. But such sacrifices should be made to benefit the State and not any section of the community. In this respect, may I draw the attention of the House to two aspects of the Bill. The premises affected by the Bill are those that were built before January 1947. Under the protection of the Control of Rent Ordinance (Cap. 242), the rents of these premises are considerably cheaper than those of premises of a similar type built after the war. They are, in fact, cheaper than Housing Board premises. The minimum compensation of eight years' rent for commercial premises and six years' rent for residential premises provided in clause 7 (1) (a) and 7 (1) (b) is anything between one-fifth and one-tenth of the current market value. The Bill, therefore, seems to benefit the landlords immediately. My main concern is for the poor sub-tenants who live in cubicles or in small units which they rent from sub-tenants of chief tenants.

Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker, Sir, you will agree that it is difficult, if not impossible, to expect these sub-tenants to get to see the terms of tenancy made between the landlord and the chief tenants at the time when they accepted their sub-tenancy. In any negotiations for compensation resulting in awards granted by the Board, the landlord, according to clause 9 (1) (a) , is not liable to pay compensation to a sub-tenant if the tenant has sublet the premises contrary to the terms of his tenancy. It seems to me that this clause penalises the poor and ignorant sub-tenant while, in fact, it was the chief tenant who ought to be penalised for breach of his tenancy agreement. Moreover, the chief tenant will get the Board's award while the poor sub-tenant may possibly be evicted in accordance with clause 4 (6) of the Bill. In conclusion, I urge this House to consider the Bill with the utmost care while encouraging and promoting development in the private sector. Steps should be taken to ensure that the burden of sacrifice, if sacrifice has to be made, is equitably shared by all parties concerned and not borne solely by the poor tenants and sub-tenants. 4.24 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir,I have no doubt that this Bill has a lot of salient points in its favour, and most of the landowners who genuinely believe in development of their properties must hail this as one step forward in the development of Singapore. Personally, I believe such a Bill has long been overdue. However, I understand that it is better late than never. The P.A.P. Government has managed in a relatively short space of time to re-house a fifth of our population in modern housing estates, and I am sure this is quite a record in the world. Yet a good number of our people are still living in congested squalor in many of the privately-owned residential premises or even shophouses in many parts of our city. I understand most of these residential premises are leased to tenants, many of whom exploit the shortage of accommodation by sub-letting as much space as is humanly possible to other tenants. These sub-tenants are thus compelled to live in almost sub-human conditions and surroundings. These houses are therefore a constant risk to human lives in terms both of health and fire. Sir, I am as sorry for these sub-tenants as for the owners of such properties. They are victims of the Control of Rent Ordinance. The law protects the principal tenants from eviction and an increase in rents. The proposed Bill, although very commendable, may yet prove to be a boom to the principal tenants. So far, these persons have enjoyed very low rentals and thus saved a fortune. Many of them have acquired another fortune by subletting to as many persons as possible. Now these principal tenants have the prospects of getting a third fortune, namely, compensation for vacating their rented premises. Surely there must be a limit to so much good fortune being given to these principal tenants. Why must the landowners or property owners be at the losing end all along the way? The Bill expects these owners to develop the properties out of their own funds. I do hope, therefore, that the Tenants' Compensation Board, when formed, will bear in mind the loss of reasonable income by the owners for many years. The amount of compensation calculated must be based more on what the owners can do in the development of Singapore than on what the tenants hope to extract from society. If compensation is to be paid to a principal tenant who has sublet the house to others, then this compensation should also be proportionately parcelled out to the sub-tenants. Sir, I see in clause 7, sub-clause (1) (a), (b) and (c) , that a minimum compensation is stressed in relationship to controlled premises. Surely if stress is made on a minimum compensation, it would be equally fair if a possible maximum compensation is also stressed so as to cut down demands to a sensible amount. Otherwise, where is the limit to demands by unreasonable tenants? May I ask the Minister why only certain areas will be designated? How are these areas to be earmarked? Is it by reason of the age of the areas, congestion, squalid conditions, ugliness or tourist attractions? If these are the reasons, then practically the whole city of Singapore must be designated for re-development. 4.28 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I also wish to express my support for this Bill, especially the provisions to establish the Tenants' Compensation Board and the payment of compensation to tenants before recovery of controlled premises. This Bill should have been introduced earlier. It is introduced only today but I feel that it is still not too late yet. Past experience shows that many people wanting to recover their property and premises exercised stringency in the amount of compensation to be paid. Thus, tenants normally refused to accept such compensation. They demanded more compensation and the owners refused to give in to their demands. In the end, it usually resulted in fights and court cases. Therefore, I would say that the Minister is judicious in introducing certain provisions in the Bill which will benefit many of our people and which will solve many of our housing and development problems. In my opinion, many of our streets have to be extended and many dilapidated houses should give way to development in order to modernise our city. This Bill will enable this to be done, so I must support it. 4.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill in itself is a reflection of the vast social changes that have taken place in Singapore, especially in the field of housing and of which we can be justly proud. Historically, the systematic control of rent was introduced in many countries in the world, especially in Europe. As a result of the vast social upheavals that took place in the two World Wars, it is in fact a reflection of the degree to which we have mitigated these effects in Singapore that we are able to move a Bill of this nature. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are, however, a few issues of a fundamental nature involved in this Bill upon which I would like to dwell. They relate mainly to the functions and powers of the Tenants' Compensation Board. These powers, which are provided in this Bill, will be much more extensive than those conferred on the Rent Conciliation Board set up under the Control of Rent Ordinance. Under normal circumstances, such functions and powers would have been exercised by the High Court which should be the proper body for administering a statute affecting the very serious rights and liabilities of litigants. Mr Speaker, Sir, examples of these wide judicial powers are -

Order. I will suspend the sitting now and will take the Chair again at a quarter past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.38 p.m. until 5.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.15 p.m.

Debate resumed. Question again proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the wake of city development and the British withdrawal from Singapore, the introduction of this Bill is very timely and necessary. With the passage of this Bill I think many developers will be able to take part in the Government's urban renewal programme. In the long run this Bill will bring about a better and more aesthetic looking city. It will resolve many problems, such as the congestion in certain streets and areas. There will also be more employment opportunities and economic growth. We can say that the persons who drafted this Bill have done their best to look after the interests of both land-owners and tenants. But some people consider that the compensation stipulated in the Bill to be paid to tenants and sub-tenants is rather low. Take, for instance, the case of a three-storey building. If the premises come under the Rent Control Ordinance, then the rent would normally be not more than $150 per month. If the premises are used for residential purposes, then under the Bill the tenant can only get a minimum of 150 times 12 times $6, namely, $10,800. If there are three tenants occupying the same building, then each household will be getting only $3,600. That is not too bad. But, in fact, these premises would normally have been in existence for quite a long time and not many people are staying in the same building. So each household will be getting only a very meagre sum as compensation. In addition to this, they will have to move house within a short time. So there is a great difference between the benefit they can get as compensation and the loss they will have to incur and the inconvenience suffered. According to my calculation, the situation is like this. If the law is put into effect, I hope the Tenants' Compensation Board will consider every case with sympathy and consideration and not stick always to the minimum rate of compensation. Moreover, the sub-tenants and sub-sub-tenants in the building should be given due consideration. We all remember that during the years of the Second World War when there was a housing shortage many chief tenants made use of the opportunity to exploit their sub-tenants and extract money out of them. They disregarded the Rent Control Ordinance and other relevant laws, if any. In the law in existence up till now, no protection whatsoever is given to sub-tenants. Although according to the proposed Bill sub-tenants may get some compensation from the chief tenants, many members of the public think that the protection and the benefits given to sub-tenants under this Bill are not sufficient. I feel that in stipulating the compensation to be given by the Board to the chief tenant, consideration should also be given to the amount of compensation to be given to the sub-tenants. With regard to the amount necessary for the development of premises, the Bill does not stipulate a maximum. It is therefore not possible to assess the position. But the Bill provides that when an application is made for the development of premises, the owner has to prove that he has sufficient funds to develop the site and furnish the necessary funds. This is what the Bill stipulates. But this is not very clear and I hope that when the Bill is referred to Select Committee, a more definite picture on this matter can emerge and more clear cut provisions will be put into the Bill. I hope also that the Board will be given a clear picture in regard to this matter, especially when there is no appeal against the final decision of the Board.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I merely wish to bring up a small point. I am sure the Minister is well aware that there are tenants, or more precisely occupiers, who enjoy physical occupation of the controlled premises and pay their rent under the names of the previous tenants from whom they have taken over the tenancy right. There are, of course, cases of assignments or transfers effected without the knowledge and consent of the landlord. But there are also instances of occupiers who are relatives or surviving members of the deceased tenants. According to the provisions of clauses 10, 11 and 12 of the Bill, I presume - and I stand to be corrected, Sir - that such occupiers will be classified as trespassers and that they will be paid only ex-gratia payments. It would be gross injustice to treat these occupiers as trespassers simply because they do not have a tenancy agreement with the landlord in their own names. Sir, I would request the Minister to look into this problem and introduce some remedial provisions to protect the interest of these occupiers. Notwithstanding what I have said, I support this Bill. 5.24 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no complaint against the intent of the Bill. The objectives attempted by it are worthy of support by both the landlords and the tenants. There is no doubt that Singapore needs very rapid development. There is even less doubt that one of the major causes retarding development has been the operation of the Control of Rent Ordinance which, for over 20 years, has pegged rents at such unrealistic levels so that slums remain slums. The existence of the Control of Rent Ordinance for so long has also resulted in abuses and inequities being deeply entrenched and interwoven into our social and economic system. Therefore, while I applaud the Government for the bold move to rectify an ancient ill, I must, at the same time, sound a note of caution as to the possible adverse repercussions. Many tenancies of rent controlled premises have changed hands many times and, quite frequently with the knowledge and connivance of the landlord, at very high premiums. For instance, it is not unknown that certain premises along the busy parts of North Bridge Road have changed hands with tea money paid out as high as $100,000. If the last tenant who paid this huge sum of money for a tenancy of the premises is evicted, it will be a very difficult problem for the Tenants Compensation Board to determine the right amount of compensation. The Board is required to award a fair and reasonable sum, but this sum will not be less than eight years' rent paid for the premises. Assuming that the Board has found it a fact that the landlord has taken tea money -and this is always very difficult to prove, although it is highly inconceivable that any landlord would have allowed a change of tenancy if his palm were not greased with money, is the Board in a position to take into account the landlord's share of the tea money? If not, will not the landlord get an unfair advantage? Even if the Board can take into account the landlord's share of the tea money, it can at best take into account the last tenancy transfer, as it is highly unlikely that earlier tenants can be traced or, if traced, will volunteer information. In many instances, the tea money paid by the last tenant, partly to the landlord and partly to the previous tenant, represents a sizable investment, and probably almost his entire capital will, as it were, be gone and replaced only fractionally by the Board's award. How many such businesses owned by such tenants will be adversely affected I do not pretend to be able to guess. But I should like those charged with declaring an area as designated for development, or with the onerous duties of the Board, to bear in mind that brand-new shopping and business premises will mean very little if the businesses that are expected to occupy them are made bankrupt by the process of building the premises. Sir, I make these observations fully conscious of the provisions contained in clause 7 (2) of the Bill, which allows the Board to give regard to goodwill, probable loss of income, disruption of business, cost of removal, etc. The basic fact is that if the award comes anywhere near the tenant's expectations, the need for this Bill would not have arisen because the tenant would have already come to an agreement with the landlord. But the very nature of this Bill is to enable the landlord to recover premises which he cannot do under existing conditions. 5.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel in all sincerity that the Government must be commended for this very sensible Bill on the recovery of possession of controlled premises designed to encourage and promote development in the private sector in Singapore. The Government has, of late, placed much emphasis on the introduction of incentives to accelerate the industrial and economic development of our country. This Bill for the recovery of possession of controlled premises is very constructive, being fair, flexible and providing adequate protection to both landlords and tenants. How I wish that the proposed new labour laws are as constructive and encouraging as this one! Sir, all obstructions to the progress of our society must be removed in an intelligent way. Squatter areas, illegal and other forms of land occupation which are not only economically unproductive but also socially and physically unhealthy, must make way for new and healthier social and economic development. But such changes must be made with the least possible hardship and in the most fair and equitable manner to all classes of people, be they capitalists or workers, landlords or tenants. There is in this Bill an elaborate list of provisions to ensure that a landlord claiming land must have a sincere intention to develop the property. There is a heavy penalty - which is the compulsory acquisition of the controlled premises by Government - should a landlord after recovery of the premises fail to complete its development within a prescribed period. The safeguards provided in this Bill against abuses by the landlord are indeed quite complete. It is also heartening to note that fairly adequate provisions have been proposed to compensate tenants affected by this Bill. I refer to the proposed establishment of the Tenants' Compensation Board, the minimum payment of at least six years' and eight years' rent to evicted tenants of residential and business premises respectively. And there are also provisions for compensation for loss of goodwill, disruption of business, etc. I am, however, quite ignorant of the basis upon which the Government has arrived at the decision to pay a minimum of six and eight years' rent to tenants of residential and business premises respectively. I will be glad if the Minister for Law and National Development can enlighten me on this. Sir, in the case of evicted tenants, may I suggest that these persons be given priority to move back to their original area of residence or business, if such is possible, after development of the area has been completed? There are some who, I believe, for good reasons would prefer a temporary rather than a permanent uprooting from their original area of tenancy. Certain areas, for example, are strategic areas for business operations enabling lower transportation costs and within convenient reach of many other facilities if these amenities still exist after development. There is no reason to deny priority to those who originally enjoyed them. I further wish to suggest a more comprehensive procedure to deal with claims from tenants of business houses. Such claims may involve substantial amounts and can be highly complicated. As such, I do not feel that the rulings of the Tenants' Compensation Board can adequately do justice. To be fair, it is my contention that a dissatisfied tenant should have option to appeal to a higher authority, preferably to a civil court of law. This will certainly act as a counter-check to the rulings of the Board and justice will be more fully ensured.

I take it that there are no other Members who wish to speak. Mr Barker. 5.37 p.m.

Sir, it is obvious from the number of Members who have spoken that this Bill has aroused great interest. Most have spoken in favour of the Bill but have criticised various clauses. I do not propose to deal with all criticisms today. The Bill is going to Select Committee. In Select Committee, we will not only receive the views of Members of this House but, what is even more important, the written representations of the public. And if landlords or tenants wish to appear before the Committee, they will be most welcome. But perhaps I can here deal with some of the salient points raised by hon. Members. One or two Members are not very conversant with the provisions of the Control of Rent Ordinance. These are, I am afraid, rather complicated provisions and even some lawyers do not understand them. Many hon. Members were concerned with the position of the sub-tenant or the sub-sub-tenant. Under the Control of Rent Ordinance, the landlord of the premises is the landlord of the principal tenant. But the principal tenant is the landlord of the sub-tenant. And the sub-tenant is the landlord of the sub-sub-tenant, and so on. But, of course, there are persons who are, in legal terminology, trespassers and some are merely licensees. I will not bother hon. Members with the legal definitions of who is a tenant and who is a licensee. Our problem here has been to find a quick method of evicting tenants, sub-tenants, sub-sub-tenants, licensees and trespassers by paying those who deserve compensation a reasonable compensation and allowing the landlord to rebuild as quickly as possible. In law, the trespasser is in a very weak position. He trespasses. He should not be there. Why should he be paid? A licensee, on reasonable notice, must vacate. It is only when a tenancy exists that the protection of the Control of Rent Ordinance comes into force. These are all rather complicated problems. And it is no use evicting only tenants and sub-tenants without getting an order against licensees and trespassers because then you will have to go to the High Court to evict trespassers and licensees. It will be a long time before you get judgment in your favour and there can be appeal after appeal. But the Member for Bukit Panjang, who is a lawyer himself and who understands these problems, has made many important points. He is worried about the order of the Board being a final order. He wants an appeal at least on a question of law. I would agree that, as far as the amount of compensation is concerned, there should be no appeal as in land acquisition cases. But when there is an issue as to whether a man is a tenant or a licensee or a trespasser, then the Board may slip up. But these are matters which the Select Committee can deal with. I am sure the legal profession itself will make representations, if not similar then somewhat on the same lines as have been made by the Member for Bukit Panjang. As for compensation, in my opening speech I said that the formula was not a perfect formula and I would be happy if any Member in this House could suggest or devise a perfect formula. Roughly, we work on the lines that reasonable compensation would be somewhat equivalent to the tea money which is being paid in Singapore for a transfer of the tenancy or for the surrender of possession. But, obviously, even the amount of tea money varies. You pay more tea money for business premises than for a residence. Hence eight years' rent for business and six years' rent for residential premises. But this will vary not only from business to business but also from place to place. The Member for Joo Chiat wants to know why we do not declare the whole island a designated area. To do that would raise even a bigger howl. I think it would be best that we proceed cautiously and designate only certain areas as a start, probably the area within a mile of Raffles Place. I say, "for a start" and, then we go on. The areas to be designated will be designated by the Minister but, of course, on the recommendations of his planners and other urban renewal experts. When the Board first starts to sit, we do not want to flood it with so many applications. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Anson, who is not here, raised certain questions of law as to why sub-tenants who under the principal tenancy should not have gone into the premises are barred by this Ordinance from getting compensation; for even under the Control of Rent Ordinance, the landlord can recover possession of the premises from his principal tenant if under the principal contract of tenancy, subletting is prohibited and the principal tenant sublets. It is a contractual obligation which, if broken, gives the landlord certain remedies. If I let out my house to you on condition that you do not let it out to anyone else, and you do, well, you are looking for trouble. And so is that somebody else who takes it from you. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I need say much more except that I should put on the Select Committee Members of this House who have shown such great interest in the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, "That the Bill be committed to Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members as follows: Mr E. W. Barker Mr Ho See Beng Mr Hwang Soo Jin Mr Lee Teck Him Mr Lim Soo Peng Mr Phua Bah Lee Mr P. Selvadurai." -[Mr Barker].

Order for Second Reading read. 5.49 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The law in force at present in Singapore relating to patents is contained in the Registration of United Kingdom Patents Ordinance (Cap. 181) which provides for the registration in Singapore of patents granted in the United Kingdom. Such registration confers privileges and rights relating to the invention similar in all respects to those conferred by the issue of the patent in the United Kingdom. There are, however, no provisions in our Ordinance to require patentees to work their inventions in Singapore. There are also no provisions empowering the Registrar of Patents in Singapore to grant compulsory licences for the making, using, exercising and vending of patented inventions in Singapore. The result is that owners of patents registered in Singapore have in most cases not bothered to work their inventions in Singapore. This is particularly evident in the field of patented medicines and drugs. The demand for patented medicines in Singapore, therefore, can only be met by importation which has caused a substantial loss in foreign exchange. An analysis of major patented pharmaceutical products purchased by private consumers shows that there would be a saving in foreign exchange of about $2 million per year if local manufacturers are permitted to manufacture patented drugs. Important drugs, which if manufactured in Singapore can be made available at lower costs, are being imported and sold to local consumers at higher prices. In order to make available such drugs to the public at reasonable prices and in order to develop our pharmaceutical industry, a system of compulsory licensing is urgently required. A compulsory licence is an authorisation given by a competent authority to a person other than the owner of the patent to make, sell, use and exercise the patented product even though the beneficiary of the compulsory licence has no authorisation from the owner of the patent. Although the laws of many countries provide for compulsory licences, in actual fact, the number of cases in which these provisions have been invoked are relatively few. This is no indication that the system of compulsory licences has not attained the main objective for which it was created. This objective is to cause the working of the patented invention in the country. If the owner of a patent does not work his invention or hesitates to grant contractual licences on reasonable terms, the mere fact that the law empowers the granting of compulsory licences for the manufacture of his invention will usually induce him to grant licences by contract on reasonable terms. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill in clauses 3 and 5 empowers the Registrar of Patents to grant compulsory licences in respect of the making, using, exercising and vending of patented inventions concerned with food or medicine or a surgical or curative device and also on certain grounds - in respect of classes of inventions listed in the Schedule to the Bill. Clause 5 however provides that the Registrar shall not grant a licence in respect of a patented food, medicine or surgical or curative device if the patentee satisfies him that he has already established or is about to establish an industry in Singapore for the making of such food, medicine or surgical or curative device. The Registrar is empowered in clause 7 to revoke a patent under certain circumstances two years after he has granted a licence to manufacture in Singapore the invention to which the patent relates. These provisions are necessary to encourage the commercial working of recent inventions in Singapore and will benefit our industrialisation programme. The Minister will have power to add to the list in the said Schedule as and when required. In clause 10, the Registrar is empowered, where the patentee and the licensee are unable to agree on the amount of the royalty or compensation, to determine the amount of royalty or compensation payable to the patentee under a compulsory licence but such royalty or compensation shall not exceed ten per cent of the net ex-factory sale price in bulk of the patented article. The Bill also provides that the rights conferred by a patent shall not be deemed to be infringed by the making, importation or obtaining by or on behalf of the Government of any patented medicine or drug for distribution or use in any dispensary, hospital or other medical institution maintained by or on behalf of the Government or otherwise specified by the Minister by notification in the Gazette. The patentee shall be notified by the Government as soon as practicable of such making or user and in default of any agreement between the patentee and the Government, the Registrar may determine the amount of royalty or compensation payable to the patentee, but such royalty or compensation shall not exceed five per cent of the net ex-factory sale price in bulk of the patented article. An appeal lies against any decision of the Registrar to an Appeal Tribunal to be presided over by a Judge of the High Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, I must emphasise that it is not the purpose of this Bill to deprive any person of his rights under a patent. Its main aim is to secure that inventions whose exploitation would be of economic benefit to Singapore are commercially worked locally. 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. 6.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill seeks to provide for the extradition of fugitives - in other words, the surrender of a fugitive criminal by one state to another in which he is liable to be punished or has been convicted. It may be of interest to Members if, before moving on to the historical background of the law of extradition that is at present in force in Singapore, I say a few words on the theoretical basis of this law. In theory no state can be called upon to enforce through its tribunals the penal laws of other states, or to try a person for an offence alleged to have been committed beyond its frontiers, if a man commits a crime in China, you do not try him in Singapore, and vice versa. The principles of the independence and sovereignty of each country militate against any such obligation. It has, however, for a long time been recognised by various states that it is not in their interest to afford refuge to criminals from other countries. On the contrary, it is in their interests to return the fugitive criminal for trial and punishment to the state in which the offence was committed or in which the criminal was convicted. Involving, therefore, as it does the extension of the criminal jurisdiction of one state beyond its own territorial limits into those of another, extradition forms, at the present day, an important and integral part of Public International Law, and is as such, apart from international comity, generally regulated by mutual arrangement or treaty between the various states. Most states in the modern world have extradition laws in force. With these few remarks, I will now survey the historical background to the existing extradition laws in Singapore. Our Laws have been derived from two English Statutes - the Extradition Act, 1870, which applies to extradition to foreign countries and the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, which applies to extradition among Commonwealth countries. Both these Statutes have outlived their usefulness. Not only is their continued existence incompatible with the independent and sovereign status of Singapore but also, since they belong to another age, they fail to take into account modern concepts that have now become part of extradition laws in the Commonwealth. For example, they do not provide for a state to refuse extradition of a person who is to be charged with or surrendered for a political offence or for an offence of a political character. Apart from anything else, it is clearly right and proper that Singapore should now be able of its own accord to enter into extradition treaties with foreign states though the treaties already made by the United Kingdom and Malaysia on behalf of Singapore will continue to apply until such time as the Government decides that they should cease so to apply. With regard to Commonwealth countries there will be no necessity to enter into bilateral treaties, for a common scheme for extradition was agreed to at the Commonwealth Law Ministers Conference held in May 1966, in London at which I represented Singapore. It was agreed at that meeting that this common scheme should apply to all Commonwealth countries and is to be included in the legislation of each country; though this does not preclude modification of the general scheme in certain circumstances. The common scheme, which has been written into this Bill, is significant since it incorporates a revised list of agreed extraditable offences, which will have application not only with regard to extradition as between Singapore and other Commonwealth countries, but also (subject to treaty) as between Singapore and foreign states. For the sake of clarity, I should mention at this point that the distinction that is made in the United Kingdom Acts between the expression "extradition" as applying to surrender of fugitive criminals among independent states and the expression "fugitive offenders" as being restricted to cases of surrender as between different parts of the British Commonwealth, now disappears. Indeed, as the Bill makes clear, the provisions dealing with surrender to foreign states follow much the same pattern as those dealing with surrender to Commonwealth countries. Mr Speaker, Sir, Members will notice that the United Kingdom Acts to which I have referred are repealed by this proposed legislation. It will further be observed that the Malaysian Warrants and Summons (Special Provisions) Act, 1965, is also repealed. The reason for this is that the same ground is covered by Part V of the Bill dealing with extradition to and from Malaysia. This Part provides a simple and expeditious procedure for the return of fugitive offenders from Singapore to Malaysia. It is the sort of simplified procedure as between neighbouring countries that was envisaged in the common scheme. Malaysia in its Commonwealth Fugitive Criminals Act, 1967 (No. 54 of 1967) has included corresponding provisions. These provisions provide for Magistrates to issue or endorse warrants rather than the more complicated "requisition to Minister" procedure laid down for surrender of fugitives to foreign and other Commonwealth countries. They also extend to a wider range of offences than is the case with foreign and other Commonwealth countries. The Explanatory Statement to the Bill describes in some detail the nature of the various provisions in the Bill and I do not propose to elaborate on them. In closing, I would, for the information of Members, mention that enabling legislation giving effect to the common scheme has already been enacted in the United Kingdom, Australia and Malaysia - there may well be others. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 6.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a very interesting Bill and I must commend it. For the first time in a very long while, we have a Bill which is really well drafted. Over the ages all over the world two principles have contested with each other for final expression. Both are civilised principles. One, of course, is that no state must allow its territory to be used as a haven for common criminals. The second one, especially after the French Revolution, is that no political offender should be extradited. Even to this day the battle between these two principles has not been finally resolved. I am glad to note that we have made adequate provisions in this Bill to safeguard political offenders who come to Singapore and find haven here. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are, however, a few provisions which I would like to consider in detail, at least for the purpose of rationalising the faults. We have three clauses - clause 26, clause 37 and clause 45 of the Bill. All these three clauses deal with an order made by a magistrate for committal. If the committed person is not happy with the order of the magistrate, he has got two different types of redress. Clause 37 deals with Malaysia. It lays down that if the committed person is not satisfied with the order of the magistrate he can make an application to the High Court. It is a very simple procedure. Whereas clause 12, dealing with a foreign country, and clause 26, dealing with a Commonwealth country, lay down that he can bring the matter up in the High Court by way of habeas corpus proceedings. I do not see logically why we should maintain this difference in this Bill. If the procedure in clause 37 is the more rational and simple, then, of course, it should apply to the other two clauses as well. Or, on the other hand, if the habeas corpus procedure is a simpler one, then, of course, it should be made to apply to a Malaysian offender as well. It may not be a fundamental point, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I think it will make for clarity and symmetry in the law if this can be rationalised. Clause 45 gives the Minister the power to vary the Schedules of this Bill and I am very concerned with the First Schedule which lays down the various offences for which an offender can be extradited. What I am concerned with is that in making a variation, we should make sure that a person who is already in Singapore, having committed an offence which is not covered by the Schedule, should not be brought under this purview merely by a change in the Schedule itself. These are the small points which I really want to discuss, Sir. I would like to make one other point. I notice that in this Bill and in one other Bill, there is an index laid out. I notice that most of the other Bills that have been brought before Parliament from time to time do not have an index at all. Can I make a suggestion, Sir? In future, all Bills should have indexes like this because it makes it simpler for reference. Mr Tang See Chim and other hon. Members: Hear, hear! 6.16 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did say in my opening speech that Part V of the Bill deals with extradition to and from Malaysia and provides a simple and expeditious procedure for the return of fugitive offenders from Singapore to Malaysia. As the Member for Bukit Panjang well knows, we were not very long ago a part of Malaysia. For historical reasons, we are more closely connected with Malaysia than with other countries. As far as foreign countries are concerned, it is not so easy to come to some extradition treaty. Hence the difference between the procedure for the extradition of fugitives from Singapore to Malaysia and those to and from Commonwealth and foreign countries. The procedure for extradition as between Commonwealth countries was agreed to at the London Law Conference which I mentioned. The procedure for extradition between Singapore and Malaysia has been agreed to between Singapore and Malaysia. As for the Schedule, the Minister has powers to vary it. But here again the list of offences that are specified as extraditable offences as far as the Commonwealth is concerned, was again agreed to after a long argument at the London Law Conference. It forms part of a common scheme which has been adopted by the Commonwealth countries subject to variations or modifications as each country chooses to adopt. There has been one difficulty, which is this. If you commit the offence of murder in Singapore, you are liable to be sentenced to be hanged. As Members well know, the United Kingdom have got rid of capital punishment perhaps to suit their own local social conditions. Our conditions are different. They want a discretion - a discretion not to return persons who commit murder in Singapore and run to the United Kingdom. They say that it is against their social conscience if these offenders are returned because, on conviction, they are liable to be hanged. Our argument is that the crime is committed here. And surely the punishment to be meted out should be in accordance with our laws, not theirs. I merely raise this matter because, as between country A and country B, there may be modifications to the scheme. Some countries may not choose to return offenders for certain offences. Hence the provision enabling the Minister to vary the Schedule. But I give the hon. Member my assurance that we will not vary the Schedule in respect of crimes that have already been committed in order to fix someone who has done it and is about to run away.

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. 6.26 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill was introduced in the last Parliament but has since lapsed in view of the dissolution of Parliament on 8th February, 1968. The Bill makes a number of significant amendments to the Medicines (Advertisement and Sale) Ordinance, 1955. For the past few years, the Ministry of Health has been receiving numerous complaints regarding undesirable advertisements appearing in local newspapers concerning medicines or unqualified persons claiming cures for a wide range of conditions, from sexual weakness, chronic sterility, menstrual disorders to kidney diseases, etc. In general, these advertisements are deceitful, misleading and are calculated to dupe the uninformed and gullible members of the public, so that they can part with their money to purchase these so-called "miraculous cures" for all their ills. Existing Ordinances for the control of such advertisements, namely, the Medicines (Advertisement and Sale) Ordinance, 1955, and the Indecent Advertisement Ordinance (Cap. 142), are inadequate and prosecutions under these Ordinances have proved difficult and unsuccessful, particularly as advertisers have got round the restrictions by using homonyms and synonyms, or by claiming to advertise medical skills instead of medicines. My Ministry has given very careful consideration to this problem before this present stage of proposing an Amendment Bill to this House. As far back as 1962, a Committee was formed to examine the problem and suggest measures of control with the following terms of reference:- 'To study the current undesirable and unethical "cures" and "advertisement of cures", and to suggest measures of control.' This Committee made certain recommendations for control. Subsequently, in 1966, the Committee was resuscitated under the same Chairman, Dr Gwee Ah Leng, with the following terms of reference: 'To study the current unethical, dishonest and undesirable advertisements pertaining to treatment, cures, and to the medical, skills of unqualified persons and to suggest measures of effective control.' The unanimous conclusions of this Committee extended the recommendations of the previous Committee by reviewing and adding to the list of diseases prohibited for general advertising and by recommending a general ban on all advertisements pertaining' to medical skills. The Committee also made certain recommendations for the effective control of labelling and importation of drugs which are being separately dealt with by the Controller of Imports and Exports as they relate to his control measures. Copies of the Committee's report have been distributed to Members of this House through the Clerk of Parliament. I would now like to elaborate on the Bill, clause by clause. Clause 1 sets out the short title and commencement. Clause 2 amends section 4 of the Ordinance by substituting a Schedule in place of the list of conditions and diseases mentioned in respect of which advertisements are prohibited. The Schedule may be amended by notification in the Gazette. This arrangement is obviously less cumbersome than having to amend the Ordinance whenever circumstances make it necessary to amend the list. Clause 3 creates a new section aimed at prohibiting advertisements relating to medical skill or service. Medical practitioners of the Western school are forbidden to advertise by their ethics and this is controlled by a disciplinary body of the profession itself, namely, the Singapore Medical Council. The Chinese Physicians' Association have also officially declared its stand in public against advertisements by medical practitioners of the Chinese school. However, in their case, they are handicapped by lack of a disciplinary board, The amendment in this new section will, therefore, reinforce the hand of medical practitioners of the Chinese school who will now be able to see their stand reinforced by law. This prohibition will financially affect a number of publications in the Chinese medium, but public interest must supersede private interest, however much we may regret the loss of income to these establishments. Clause 4 amends section 5 of the Ordinance so that the prohibition of advertisements on articles relating to abortion is extended to prohibit advertisements referring to medical skill or service relating to abortion. Clause 5, which amends section 6 of the Ordinance, is consequential on the preceding sections. It tidies up the references made to various prohibitions so that these are correctly referred to. As part of the tidying-up process, a new subsection is added to provide for reference to the new prohibition of advertisments referring to medical skill or service within this section which sets Out provisions as to offences under the preceding sections. Clause 6 amends section 7 of the Ordinance so as to clarify that where the required disclosure of composition of a medicine is written in a language other than the English language, such disclosure must be made in the English language as well as in any other language that may be used in addition to the English language. Clause 7 creates a Schedule of diseases and conditions in respect of which advertisements are to be controlled. This Schedule reviews the list of the various diseases and conditions mentioned in section 4 of the Ordinance. The list is now extended to include insanity, menstrual disorders, sexual function, infertility, impotency and frigidity. The study by the Committee under Dr Gwee Ah Leng has indicated that the diseases and conditions mentioned in the Schedule constitute the happy hunting-ground of those unscrupulous advertisers who seek to get rich quickly by preying on the anxiety and desperation of the unfortunate victims of these diseases and conditions. As there are a number of parties likely to be interested in the proposals contained in the Bill, such as doctors, physicians, pharmacists, dentists, importers of drugs and advertising agencies, it has been decided that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee if the Second Reading is approved, so that wider 'consideration might be given to the suggested amendments. Finally, as my predecessor in the Ministry of Health has stressed, may I say that we owe a duty to the people of Singapore to protect them from the unscrupulous exploitation of the quacks and others of the kind who make money out of the sufferings and despair of those who are not in a position to judge wisely. These amendments will translate a universally accepted principle in the medical code of ethics into a provision of the law of the land. I am confident that hon. Members of this House will give their support for the enactment of this proposed legislation. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 6.37 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill. With the passage of this Bill in Parliament, we will be able to control effectively the advertising of certain medicines in newspapers and other publications. Mr Speaker, Sir, if we go through the pages of the Malay newspapers, we find ridiculous advertisements of medicines which claim to be able to turn an old man into a young man and an old lady into a virgin. How is this possible? I have read an advertisement in a Malay newspaper not long ago about a certain medicine which claims to be able to increase the sexual potency of men. It claimed that if a male person took that medicine, he would be like an elephant who had gone wild. If this claim is correctly made, I feel that such a medicine is very dangerous. If every male person in Singapore were to take this medicine, what would happen to our female population? I have also come across an advertisement in a newspaper about a certain kind of medicine called Ma'jun which is supposed to turn old ladies into virgins. If this claim is justified and all our female population were to take this medicine, what would happen to our male population? However, these medicines are not as effective as they are claimed to be. On the contrary, they affect the health of those people who take them. I feel that the newspapers and other publications which print these advertisements do so purely with a profit motive and without consideration for the welfare of members of the public. Therefore, I support this Bill. 6.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for some time now, certain so-called and self-styled "medical practitioners" have wantonly and unethically claimed to cure and treat all kinds of illnesses - in particular female ailments, such as overdue menstruation - and they have often procured illegal abortions as well. In the past, these quacks and street pedlars used to stand at street corners announcing their presence by beating gongs and playing music from their vans. They then orate to the people present about the miraculous qualities of the medicines they peddle. By such means, these rogues and vagabonds were able to sell whatever oil they were peddling as a miraculous cure for broken bones. To my surprise, I also found they were selling plain 'Aspro' pills as pregnancy pills and as cures for sterility and so on. However, by such means, they could reach only a limited number of people who happened to be attracted by the music from their vans and gongs and who fell prey to their oratory. But now these pedlars and quacks have become wiser. In order to reach a wider section of the public, they now use the Press to advertise their wonderful medicines and their nonsense. These malpractices, therefore, have become a real menace to our society. It is, therefore, opportune that this Bill be passed to control such malpractices. Sir, these pedlars and quacks have already unscrupulously exploited and cheated a large section of the general public. Not only did the susceptible victims lose large sums of money, but, in fact, their diseases were made worse by the treatments and drugs. In some cases I believe the results were fatal. Such cases are the talk of the town. In fact, too many of our good citizens have fallen into these traps because of the advertisements claiming these miraculous cures. Sir, our innocent public need protection and it is our responsibility and duty to see that they are protected as fully as possible. The Medicines (Advertisement and Sale) (Amendment) Bill is undoubtedly welcomed by all. On the other hand, it is very much regretted that it was not passed long ago. It should have been brought to this House much earlier. Nevertheless, with this amendment Bill, it is hoped that unscrupulous and unprincipled drug pedlars will be dealt with accordingly, so that our innocent citizens will be protected and no one will be deceived by unethical medical advertisements and swindled by quacks and medical pedlars. 6.45 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. When our ancestors came from different parts of the world to this small island, they brought with them various methods of treating all kinds of ailments. We have still some people here who practise these traditional methods. Of course, there are some methods which are effective. But with the progress of time we should replace them with the latest medical methods to treat the sick among our people. Some people who fall ill just buy any kind of medicine for treatment without going to the hospital for proper care. When people, particularly those who have to work all day long fall ill, they hope to be cured in the fastest and quickest way. They therefore resort to ready-made medicines and fall victim to medical quacks and pedlars. Mr Speaker, when we turn the pages of the local Chinese newspapers, we can see advertisements for medicine on every page. I have three copies of the latest editions. All these are large-sized advertisements and we can see all sorts of things in them.

Will the Member please identify the three papers?

(In Mandarin): The Nanyang Siang Pau, 2nd of May, 1968. In this edition we can see advertisements publicising "cure-all" medicines for various diseases. For instance: 'If you want to think of bearing children, come to us. We are specialists in promoting fertility and infertility. If there is no efficacy, money will be refunded in full.' And so on. Sir, the advertisements are very attractively worded. Some quacks have their own ready-made medicines for sale and distribution in the market. Some of these are advertised in the newspapers as having been patented and registered with the Government. As a result, ignorant people are misled into believing that the Government has approved and recognised the medical skills of these quacks. Hence, these quacks have their way with the public. Consequently, the Government earns a disreputable name. If we continue to allow these unscrupulous and good-for-nothing quacks to have their way with the public, maybe one day, Mr Speaker, we will see in the newspapers more shocking medical advertisements. The Bill before us will, therefore, exercise some sort of control over these pedlars of medicines and quacks. Of course, this Bill will not affect all those who are professionally qualified in medicine. At present, the best way to control these quacks is to deny them the opportunity to advertise their products in the newspapers and thus mislead the poor people. We must educate the people to the efficacy of modern medicine. At the same time, however, we must exercise some sort of control over medical advertisments which mislead the public. That is why I support this Bill. It is by legislation that we can control these medical advertisments. This is only one way of dealing with the quacks. There are other ways to control and regulate their activities. I do not know whether the Minister for Health will consider setting some sort of official examination to legalise some of the Chinese qualified Sinsehs. 6.51 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the only medical Member in this House, although seemingly incognito, and as a member of a profession that requires no advertisments, I cannot resist the temptation to say a few words on this amendment Bill. The original Ordinance has been in existence for some years, but somehow it has proved to be inadequate. It has too many loopholes, and all sorts of savoury and Un savoury advertisments on medicines and so-called professional skills are able to find their way into the newspapers, to the profit of the advertisers. Such fanfare is not worthy of detailed mention in this House or even to fall on the ears of hon. Members. Suffice it for me to say that the advertisers are either gods or fakes in what they so blantantly claim to be able to do. Illnesses of any description, fatal or otherwise, are practically guaranteed to be cured. Appetite, digestive or reproductive, can be improved, increased and strengthened. I presume, Mr Speaker, Sir, looking at such advertisements in some of the daily papers, one must have the impression that the advertisers are either leading the readers up the garden path or they are trying to promise them elixirs of life. Most of our citizens must surely have developed a sufficient degree of sophistication to ignore or laugh at such medical claims. Unfortunately, quite a number of our citizens happen to be gullible enough to swallow these advertisements, hook, line and sinker, and put their hard-earned wages and even their lives into the hands of these smart manipulators. It is therefore time for the Ministry of Health to plug up any loophole in the existing Ordinance. The amendment Bill seems to me to be doing just this. I therefore support it. 6.54 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to reply to the comments made since all hon. Members who have spoken on this Bill have supported it. Not only have hon. Members supported it but some of them have, in a very picturesque manner, given vivid examples of the malpractices that are going on in respect of medical advertisements.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection." - [Mr Chua Sian Chin].

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." -[Inche Othman Bin Wok]. Adjourned accordingly at Three minutes to Seven o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed.