Hansard, 1968-12-23

Under the provisions of clause 2 (d) of Article 30 of the Constitution of Singapore, I have granted permission to the following Member to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any committee of Parliament to which he has been appointed) for the period stated:- Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten) - from 24th to 31st December, 1968. (P. COOMARASWAMY) Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the second and third readings of the Supply Bill for 1969, the Supplementary Supply (No. 2) Bill. 1968, and the Supplementary Supply (No. 3) Bill, 1968, be taken today." - [Dr Goh Keng Swee].

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Main Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the financial year 1st January, 1969, to 31st March, 1970, have been considered and approved by the House as Cmd. Paper 27 of 1968. Under section 85 of the Constitution of Singapore, heads of expenditure other than statutory expenditure to be met from the Consolidated Fund have to be included in a Bill to be known as the Supply Bill. The purpose of such a Bill is to provide for the issue from the Consolidated Fund of the sums necessary to meet the expenditure and the appropriation of these sums for the purposes specified therein. The Supply Bill before Members is to give legislative approval for the issue of funds from the Consolidated Fund to meet the sums of expenditure for the financial year 1st January, 1969, to 31st March, 1970. In the Schedule to the Bill are shown the various heads of expenditure and the sums that may be incurred in respect of each head. These have been approved by the House in the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st January, 1969, to 31st March, 1970, and appear in pages 53 and 54 of Cmd. Paper 27 of 1968. Once the Supply Bill is approved, the Minister for Finance will be empowered to issue warrants authorising expenditure up to the amount under each head as shown in the Bill to be paid out from the Consolidated Fund. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Tang, will you please move the Third Reading?

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

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

Order for Second and Third Readings read. 2.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to provide statutory authority in accordance with clause 2 of Article 87 of the Constitution of Singapore for additional provisions for expenditure in excess of the pro visions for expenditure authorised by the Supply Act, 1967. These additional sums have been scheduled as Supplementary Estimates which have been considered and approved by the House as Cmd. Paper No. 16 of 1968. Sir, I beg to move.

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

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

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

Order for Second and Third Readings read. 2.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to provide statutory authority in accordance with clause 2 of Article 85 and clause 2 of Article 87 of the Constitution of Singapore for additional provisions for expenditure in excess of the provisions for expenditure authorised by the Supply Act, 1967. These additional sums have been scheduled as Supplementary Estimates which have been considered and approved by the House as Cmd. Paper No. 25 of 1968. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Speaker, 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. 2.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to legislate for the formation of a Museum Board. Members of this board will be drawn from the public. The purpose of this board is to advise the Director of the Museum on the setting up of exhibits in the museum and generally to make the museum attractive so that visitors to the museum will find it a pleasure to do so. Members of this board will be drawn not only from those connected with education but also generally from people who find that using the museum is instructive and educational. Question proposed.

May I point out a typographical error? The first word "Act" appearing in the first line of page I should have been "An". The word "An" is misprinted as "Act",

Yes.

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. -[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Bill considered in Committee.

2.43 p.m. Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The clerical error as pointed out by Mr Ng Yeow Chong will be corrected. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Members will recollect that in the Budget Speech the Minister for Finance mentioned that the rates of stamp duty for a number of items, most of which have not been revised since the 1930s, would be revised to bring them in line with the present value of money and to suit present day conditions. From the revenue angle, the most important item of stamp duty is on conveyances on property, accounting for 40 per cent of the stamp revenue during 1966. The existing rate is $2 for every $100 or part thereof. It is proposed to base the duty on a sliding scale. Where the value of the property is up to $30,000, there will be no change in the existing rate and, as such, purchasers of Housing and Development Board flats or other low-cost houses will not have to pay higher stamp fees. Where the value of the property is above $30,000, and not more than $50,000, there will be an increase of 50 cents for every $100 or part thereof on the value of the property exceeding $30,000. In respect of property exceeding $50,000, there will be an increase of $1 for every $100 or part thereof on the value of property exceeding $50,000. It is quite reasonable that purchasers of property of higher value pay more. At present the rate of duty on the transfer of shares and stocks is 15 cents for every $100 or part thereof where the name of the transferee is filled prior to the execution of the transfer, in other cases, the rate is 20 cents for every $100 or part thereof. It is proposed to increase the stamp duty to 20 cents and 30 cents respectively. The present fee of 10 cents per share certificate will be increased to $1 for every $1,000 or part thereof of the par value in respect of new share certificates. This revised rate will also apply to certificates issued in respect of bonus and rights issues. The higher fee is justified because, in subsequent transactions, very often shares change hands without registration, resulting in a loss of revenue. At the same time, the existing flat rate of 50 cents on a contract note will be replaced by an ad valorem duty. A duty of $1 for every $1,000 of the value of the shares and stocks will be payable. The stamp duty on cheques will be raised from 10 cents to 15 cents and on receipts from six cents to 10 cents. Apart from these, there are small increases in the rate of stamp duties on mortgages, leases, insurance, appraisements, etc. There is, however, no increase in the duties on 15 items. These consist of the following five items for which there has been no increase in the rates since 1935. (i) bonds on superannuation annuity - the rate is 25 cents for every $100; (ii) bonds of any other kind whatsoever - the rate is $5; (iii) apprenticeship deed - the rate is $1; (iv) policy of sea insurance, where the premium does not exceed $1 - the rate is five cents; and (v) life insurance policy for every $1,000 insured - the rate is 10 cents per $1,000 or part thereof. The first two items affect people in the lower income group and item (iii) affects students who wish to learn a trade. In the case of item (iv) , if a higher duty is charged, it may divert business to other countries as the policy of sea insurance could be taken elsewhere. In the case of life insurance policy, the rate is not increased because there is an automatic increase in the amount of stamp duty payable with the larger value of life policies being taken now. The ten items for which the rates have not been increased since 1952 are as follows: (i) affidavits and statutory declarations - $2; (ii) bonds on letters of administration where the estate does not exceed $10,000 - $2; (iii) power or letter of attorney for appointing a proxy or where the value of a property is below $1,000 - $1; (iv) any instrument certified or endorsed by a public notary - $2; (v) reconveyancing of mortgaged properties and securities: (a) where the amount of monies secured does not exceed $1,000 - $1; (b) where the amount of monies secured is between $1,000 and $10,000 - $3; In any other case, the rate is $10; (vi) declaration of any trust or instrument chargeable with duty on a settlement - $10; (vii) appointment of a trustee - $10; (viii) duplicate of any instrument chargeable with duty - $2; (ix) protest of bill or note made by a public notary attesting the dishonour of a bill of exchange or promissory note - $1; and (x) revocation of any trust of any property other than a will - $10. The specific rates of duties affect generally people in the lower income group. Affidavits and statutory declarations are required by people for purposes of identity cards, birth certificates and for admission of children to schools, etc. In the case of bonds on letters of administration, the specific duty is only applicable for release of estates of less than $10,000. This will affect families with small means. Power or letter of attorney appointing a proxy to vote at a meeting is a very small item of revenue. In the case of the other items, the present rates are reasonable, considering that the parties affected would have to pay duties on the other instruments connected with the transactions. Members will note that where the items affect people in the lower income group, the duties will remain unaltered and, at such, the revision of stamp duties will only affect people who can afford the small increases in the rates. Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to amend section 36 (1) of the Stamp Ordinance by increasing the flat fee for adjudication from $1 to $25 to cover the cost of services performed by the Commissioner of Stamps. In addition, it is proposed to introduce a fee where the value of the property has to be certified by .1 Government valuer. This fee will be based on the difference between the amount declared by the applicant and the amount certified by the Government valuer as follows: (a) a fee of one per cent will be charged on the first difference of $10,000; (b) a fee of half per cent will be charged on the next difference of $90,000. Where the difference is in excess of $100,000, the rate of duty will be one-quarter per cent. This measure is necessary to circumvent and discourage under-valuation by applicants. 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 Tang See Chim]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, before I deal with the Bill which covers two of the four new taxes announced by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Speech, I would like to say that the response of the public to the additional tax measures is heartening. These tax measures have been described as mild and fair because the new taxation has been kept to the minimum and the additional burden is spread thinly over a large number of persons who are able to pay without being over burdened. Some Members have expressed fears that the levy on Public Utilities Board bills will cause hardship to the poor households. In fact, the levy is based on the ability to pay and the burden on the lower income group is minimal. This has been achieved by avoiding any additional tax on cheaper cooking fuels and by exempting households whose P.U.B. bills do not exceed $10 a month. There is a rough relationship between the amount of the P.U.B. bill and the economic status of the household. The very poor are not on the P.U.B. billing list or have bills between $1 and $5. Such households use only little electricity for lighting and consume little water. The next group with P.U.B. bills between $6 and $10 consumes more electricity and water. There are some 58,000 households, or roughly 25 per cent, whose monthly P.U.B. bills are less than $10. These people do not have to pay tax on their bills. As the income rises, households purchase refrigerators, radios, television sets and install fans, water-heaters and air-conditioners. The average monthly cost of power for each of these appliances is as follows: Average Article cost of power per month Fan $3 to $4 Refrigerator $3 to $4 Television $3 to $4 Water-heater $5 to $6 Air-conditioner (one horse-power unit) $27 to $30 It is also possible to isolate the really poor households y the type of cooking fuel used, suhc as kerosene, charcoal and wood. Sir, may I rfer to teh Singapore Sample Household Survey, 1966, which was conducted by the Ministry of National Development and the Economic Research Centre, University of Singapore? It is entitled Singapore Sample Household Survey, 1966, No 1, and printed by the Government Printer in September 1967. The table I refer to, Sir, is H.54 at page 234 of the Report. According to this survey, of the total 331,952 households; kerosene was used by 104,399 households; charcoal was used by 32,675 households; and wood was used by 58,231 households; collectively accounting for 59 per cent of the households. There are about 73,000 P.U.B. consumers whose monthly bills range from $10 to $20. They will be liable to pay a levy of five per cent. Nearly half of these households will have to pay between 50 cents and 70 cents per month and the other half will have to pay between 75 cents and $1 more per month. The small levy will not cause any hardship as these households are in the better financial position, or otherwise they would not be in a position to have fans, radios and refrigerators. The next category of households, numbering 32,000, have P.U.B. bills of between $21 and $30. They will be required to pay a levy of 10 per cent. These households will have to pay between $2 an $3 a month. Such households will normally have fans, television sets and refrigerators and the extra $2 to $3 a month is not likely to involve any sacrifice on their part. There are about 50,000 households with P.U.B. bills above $30. These households are the more affluent and they have refrigerators, television sets, water-heaters and even air-conditioners. These households also have two or three water closets. I am sure that these people can afford to pay a levy varying from $3 to $12 per month. Members will agree that the tax which rises from a few cents to a few dollars in line with the economic status of the households is not unreasonable. The levy on Singapore Telephone Board - for short, I shall just say S.T.B. - bills will only affect people with means, as the less well-to-do are unlikely to have a telephone. There are 45,104 residential lines and 35,552 business lines for our population of two million people. This is the first time for more than a decade that telephone subscribers will have to pay an additional amount, as the telephone charges have not been revised since 1958. Resisdential subscribers who do not make trunk calls frequently will, on the average, pay about $3.50 per line per month. I am sure the amount of tax is far from being exorbitant and can be borne easily. Although new administrative machinery is not requried for the collection of taxes on P.U.B. and S.T.B. bills, it is necessary to provide by enactment of this Bill, legal authority for the imposition and collection of these taxes. The definition of "services" and "taxable services" in clause 2 of the Bill includes letting of apparatus or appliances. Clause 3 of the Bill empowers the Minister to specify by publishing an order in the Gazette the statutory boards and the services which will become taxable as well as the rates of tax to be charged. Clause 4 gives the power to the statutory board for the collection and recovery of this tax in such manner as approved by the Minister. Clause 5 stipulates that the tax collected under this Bill shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Clause 6 gives the power to the Minister to exempt any person from the payment of this tax. Under this provision, the Minister for Finance intends to exempt subscribers of the P.U.B, whose bills are below $10 per month and industrial consumers of electricity using more than 400,000 units of electricity a month. 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 Tang See Chim]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill before Parliament seeks to amend the Customs Ordinance, 1960 (No. 44 of 1960) to streamline customs procedures with a view to improving the efficiency of the Customs Department and reducing inconvenience to traders. I shall now deal with the important, amendments. Section 14 of the Ordinance is amended by the addition of a new section - section 14A - to allow for goods manufactured, assembled or produced in Singapore which are not subject to excise duties and which have been exported to be re-imported without payment of import duty. The importers will, however, have to satisfy the Comptroller of Customs that such goods have not undergone any processing or manipulation outside Singapore. At present, such exemptions are given on an ad hoc basis by the Minister. This causes some delay in clearance of goods and unnecessary correspondence. Under the existing Ordinance, drawback of duty is allowed on goods, subject to import duty, but not on goods, subject to excise duty. Clause 18 of the Bill extends drawback facilities to locally-manufactured products which may be subject to excise duty. At the moment, the power to levy or vary the special tax on diesel-engined vehicles lies with Parliament. Clause 6 is intended to transfer the power to the Minister. This will enable any changes to be made speedily by a Ministerial order. Clause 9 of the Bill simplifies the procedure for the duty-free importation of bona fide trade samples. Clause 11 of the Bill dispenses with the need for customs permits for dutiable imports except intoxicating liquors or tobacco where the duty is less than $100. This will expedite clearance of passengers. The other amendments are to raise the minimum amount from $10 to $100 for drawback claims and to reduce the period during which claims can be made from 12 months to six months, to give discretionary power to the Comptroller, to waive collection of duty of less than $5, and to increase the maximum composition fee from $600 to $1,000 which is the level prevailing in Malaysia. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.13 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill now before Parliament proposes two amendments to the Cinematograph Film Hire Duty Act, 1966. An amendment to section 10 to limit the amount of gross receipts which may be deducted by a film renter for the purposes of film hire duty assessment, and the other is an amendment to section 16 to enable senior officers of Customs to compound offences under the Act where the amount involved does not exceed $100. Film hire duty is assessed at 60 per cent of the gross receipts of a renter derived from the renting of films. For the purpose of duty assessment, a film renter is allowed to deduct from the gross receipts, proceeds derived from the sale or hire of advertising materials or accessories used in connection with the distribution or hire of films. There have been instances of renters deducting unreasonably large amounts in this respect, thus reducing the amount assessable for duty. As a remedy to such abuse, the amendment to section 10 of the Act limits such deductible amounts to 10 per cent of the gross receipts or $50, whichever is the lesser. At present, senior officers of Customs are empowered to conduct court prosecutions on behalf of the Comptroller of Customs and Excise for offences under the Act. Experience has shown that it is desirable to provide powers for such officers to compound offences involving sums of less than $100 to avoid taking cases to the court. This is effected by the proposed amendment to section 16 of the Act. 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 Tang See Chim]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.18 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Singapore's international trading character, coupled with the fact that many of our citizens often travel to different parts of the world, makes it necessary that officers of our Diplomatic Corps should be enabled to administer oaths or affirmations, take affidavits and do notarial acts which notary publics in Singapore are normally empowered to undertake, and for these to be valid in law. From the copies of the Bill which have been provided, Members will have seen that the primary purpose of this Bill, as set out in clause 3, is to empower diplomatic and consular officers of Singapore missions abroad, as well as those consular agents who may be acting for Singapore in countries where we are unrepresented, to perform these functions and levy appropriate fees for such services. Members will appreciate that the process of consolidating the friendly relations we have established with foreign countries will take time, money and personnel. Much as we would wish to do so, it will not be feasible to establish missions in every friendly country. As of today, we have diplomatic missions in 11 countries. In alphabetical order, our missions are located in Bangkok, Cairo, Canberra, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, London, New Delhi, Phnom Penh, Tokyo, Washington and Wellington. Besides these, we also have a Commissioner in Hong Kong and a permanent mission to the United Nations. With our citizens travelling and doing business with more countries than those in which we are represented, Singapore has to depend upon friendly governments with missions in those countries where we are unrepresented for the performance of the functions envisaged in the Bill as and when the need arises. As of today, Members will be interested to know, and note with appreciation the fact, that we have hitherto been assisted in this respect by the Governments of Malaysia, the United Kingdom and Thailand in different parts of the world where we have no missions of our own. Provision is, therefore, made in the Bill for such situations where these friendly governments can perform the functions envisaged in the Bill on our behalf and for these to be valid in law. 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 Rajaratnam]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.24 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." There has been, in recent years, an increasing demand for Singapore seamen as a result of which the reserve pooi of seamen registered in the Seamen's Registry Board has fallen below the accepted minimum of 20 per cent. As at 31st October, 1968, the total number of seamen on the register was 8,264, and a reserve pool at 20 per cent would be 1,653, but the actual availability was only 1,258 or 15 per cent of the total number of registered seamen in Singapore. The demand has arisen, firstly because of the cessation of confrontation by Indonesia with consequent new job opportunities, and the preference for Singapore seamen in relation to other Asian seamen, and, secondly, because of our Government's promotional activities for more jobs at sea. Our training ship "Singapore", which was started in 1964, has so far creditably produced over 1,600 trained seamen. This training ship scheme, however, is not capable of significantly increasing the output of trainees to meet the urgent demands at hand. Consequently, a crash programme to increase the supply of seamen has been drawn up by our Seamen's Registry Board. Briefly, the new scheme will supplement what our training ship is able to produce, by allowing shipowners to take on a flexible number of Singapore citizens to acquire the skills of seamanship through on-the-job training on board ship. Such men will be expected to do the jobs in the category in which they are employed under the guidance of experienced hands, and they will he required to serve for a period of six months before being discharged. Those who satisfactorily complete the six months' period will be given provisional registration as ordinary ratings for a further period of six months. Those who satisfactorily complete both their on-the-job training period and their period of provisional service, that is, after one year's service made up of two periods of six months each, will be registered as regular seamen and they will then be free to select employment on home-trade, local-trade or foreign-trade ships. Shipowners who participate in the new scheme are free to select and sign-on Singapore citizens whom they consider suitable for on-the-job training on their ships, without having to go through the Seamen's Registry Board. As an encouragement and incentive, owners of foreign-going ships are entitled to seek reimbursement from the Seamen's Registry Board at the rate of $35 per month per person in respect of trainees who have successfully completed their six months' on-the-job training, on board their ships. I am pleased to state here that the Singapore shipping community have responded favourably to this scheme and have indicated their willingness to participate as and when the new scheme is introduced. It will, therefore, be necessary to amend the Seamen's Registry Board Ordinance, 1957, so that the men selected for the on-the-job training by shipowners will not be required to go through the process of selection by the Board, as stipulated in the present Ordinance. The Seamen's Registry Board (Amendment) Bill seeks to achieve this by excluding probationer deck-hands, probationer engine-room hands and probationer catering hands signed on ship's articles under the scheme from the definition of "seamen" in section 2 of the Ordinance. This amendment will allow shipowners to take on untrained men for training on their ships. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.33 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Before I proceed to discuss the contents of this Bill, allow me to elaborate a little on the background of the subject. Prior to the formation of Malaysia, Singapore was a Port of British Registry. With Malaysia, Singapore became a Port of Malaysian Registry. Soon after the separation in 1965, we decided to establish our own Registry of Ships, and the Merchant Shipping (Amendment) Act of 1966 was accordingly promulgated. Under this piece of legislation, ownership of Singapore ships was confined to Singapore citizens and companies incorporated in Singapore and having their principal place of business in Singapore. Indeed, Singapore citizens and companies were compelled under the law to register their ships as Singapore ships. While, on the one hand, an obligation was imposed upon Singapore citizens and companies to register their ships with us, on the other hand, no corresponding incentives were offered. It was not surprising, therefore, to find that after one year of the establishment of our Registry, as at 31st October, 1967, there were only 298 ships on the Register totalling some 123,000 gross tons. Of the 298 ships, 244 or 82 per cent were tugs, barges, dumb lighters and other small harbour craft. Consequently, a review was made and we decided that we should remove the restriction on ownership of Singapore ships and offer attractive incentives so that, by making it worth while, ship-owners would be induced to fly the Singapore flag. Members may recollect that the then Deputy Prime Minister, now the Minister for Science and Technology, stated in Parliament during the course of the Budget debate in December last year that legislation would be introduced this year to encourage more ships to fly the Singapore flag. The Bill before this House seeks to amend the Merchant Shipping Ordinance to enable Singapore to be a party to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960, and to establish an open Registry of Ships. At present, Singapore is a party to the 1948 Safety Convention. This Convention prescribes certain requirements relating to the construction and survey of ships, provision of life-saving appliances and radio equipment, safety of navigation, carriage of grain and of dangerous goods. Signatory governments are obliged to apply these prescribed standards to their ships. The 1960 Convention is in scope and content essentially a revision and extension of the 1948 Convention which it replaces. Being a major port and having a vital interest in the development of merchant shipping, it is necessary for Singapore to accept the 1960 Convention. The first part of this Bill, therefore, contains provisions whkh will enable Singapore to give effect to the provisions of the 1960 Convention. This is achieved by deleting Part III of the existing Ordinance which deals with passenger ships only and whith contains outdated provisions, and substituting therefor a new Part III. Under this new Part III, ships are required to hold Safety Convention certificates, and provision is made for the issue of the appropriate certificates for both passenger ships as well as cargo ships. Power is given to the Minister to make the necessary regulations to implement the provisions of the 1960 Convention. The second part of this Bill seeks to amend the existing Ordinance to provide for an open Registry of Ships in Singapore. This is achieved by deleting the existing Part XIV and substituting a new Part XIV. The ownership of Singapore ships is not restricted to Singapore citizens or companies incorporated in Singapore. Under section 504, any person or company, irrespective of nationality and place of incorporation, is eligible to register ships under the Singapore flag. Where previously ownership was confined to Singapore citizens and companies, this clause now provides an opportunity for foreign shipowners to place their ships under the Singapore Register. However, it would not be sufficient merely to open the Register to foreign shipowners and companies. Incentives have to be provided for to make it worth while for shipowners to fly the Singapore flag, and I, therefore, draw Members' attention to section 512 which provides for very low fees for the registration of ships. An initial registration fee of $2.50 per net ton, and an annual tonnage tax of 20 cents per net ton only shall be payable for every Singapore ship. It is provided that this fee and annual tonnage tax shall not be increased for a period of 20 years from the date of initial registration of the ship. Shipowners will note that these rates are very much lower than those charged by other flags. In addition to this incentive of low fees, we will provide another extremely attractive financial incentive, which is that no Singapore income tax is payable on profits derived from ships registered in Singapore. Financially, therefore, a shipowner need only pay very low fees, the rate of which is guaranteed for 20 years, and profits derived from Singapore ships are exempt from Singapore income tax. I should like to assure shipowners that although income tax exemption provisions are not specifically stated in this Bill, appropriate amendments to our Income Tax laws are expected to be introduced in Parliament in the near future. In addition to these financial incentives, we will also be providing other advantages of an administrative and technical nature. Shipowners who wish to transfer their ships to the Singapore flag will not be required to have them re-surveyed if the ships possess valid certificates. As a matter of fact, this policy of not requiring ships to be re-surveyed has been in force since early last year and will be continued. Further, provision is made in section 509 (4) to accept foreign tonnage certificates. This means that a ship holding a foreign tonnage certificate need not be re-measured for tonnage when transferring to the Singapore flag. Again, this practice has already been in force and will continue to be so. The acceptance of valid certificates and foreign tonnage certificates will obviate the necessity to have the ship drydocked and re-measured, and consequently will save the shipowner considerable expense. As an added facility, international classification societies will be appointed to survey Singapore ships and issue certificates on behalf of the Singapore Government. At present, four classification societies have been appointed, namely, the American Bureau of Shipping, the French Bureau Veritas, the British Lloyds Register of Shipping, and the Norwegian Norske Veritas. Two other international classification societies are also being considered for appointment and, when appointed, shipowners will have six classification societies for the purpose of survey and issue of certificates. In addition to these, there is, of course, our own Government Survey Division whose services are available to shipowners. So altogether there will be seven survey authorities fully empowered to survey Singapore 'ships and issue certificates on behalf of Government and, with the six classification societies giving international coverage, shipowners will be assured of maximum survey facilities wherever their ships may be. Power to appoint classification societies is given in section 160. On top of all this, our registration procedures will be kept simple so that the whole process can be expeditiously completed. We will do everything possible to facilitate the transfer and registration of ships to the Singapore Registry. Members may want to know what we hope to gain out of this exercise. With income tax exemption and very low fees, we could not hope to gain much by way of revenue although the acquisition of a large tonnage would bring in some useful revenue. We hope, by encouraging foreign shipowners to register their ships under our flag, to create more employment opportunities for our citizens. Under section 527, Singapore ships engaged in home and local trade voyages shall be obliged to carry such percentage of Singapore seamen as may be prescribed from time to time. This may seem onerous at first sight, but it is really not so, because these home and local trade ships are already carrying Singapore seamen. To encourage more foreign-going ships to take on Singapore seamen, we would refund 50 per cent of the annual tonnage tax if the foreign-going ship carries at least 25 per cent Singapore seamen. This is provided for in section 527 (2). In this way, owners of foreign-going ships can reduce costs simply by engaging Singapore seamen. With regard to officers, the existing Ordinance requires Singapore ships to be manned by officers holding Singapore certificates of competency or Commonwealth certificated officers. Since we are very short of local deck officers, we will be prepared to grant liberal exemptions so that Singapore ships may be manned by officers holding valid foreign certificates. As a matter of fact, this policy of granting exemptions was implemented about a year ago, and during the period January 1967 to November 1968, 53 exemptions were granted to allow foreign certificated deck officers to sail on Singapore ships. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill provides the Minister with powers to make such regulations as are necessary or expedient. There is no need for me to go into the details of the various' regulations that we will promulgate in the near future, but I should like to deal with an important set of regulations. relating to the construction, survey and equipment of ships. This set of regulations, which will be known as the Safety Convention Regulations, will give effect to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, which I mentioned earlier. I would like to say that we expect all Singapore ships to come up to international standards. We will not allow sub-standards in matters of construction, surveys and equipment. But, on the other hand, we will not insist on excessive standards. All that we ask of the shipowner is to maintain his ship in accordance with international standards as prescribed under the 1960 Safety Convention. Consequently, our Safety Regulations will be derived substantially from the regulations annexed to the 1960 Convention. The Safety Regulations are already in draft form and can be expected to come into force in the not too distant future. In conclusion, Sir, I would like to say that since the mention of new legislation in Parliament in December last year, we have had many inquiries from ship-owners all over the world on the new Registry. Members may wish to know that as at 30th November, 1968, there were 349 ships exceeding 242,000 gross tons on our Register. Although it is gratifying to note that the registered tonnage has almost doubled since October last year, the figure is still not commensurate with our status as a major shipping centre. I am confident that with the passing of this Bill and with all the incentives enumerated, more shipowners will fly our Singapore flag. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.51 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I know that there are many advantages in having ships registered in Singapore. But what worries me is what will happen in case of accidents, say leakage of oil from a tanker registered in Singapore? Is the Government of Singapore responsible for such incidents?

Sir, I think this is a question which is exercising the minds of legal experts the world over. So I would hesitate to try to be one up on them. It is not wise to anticipate too many obstacles and problems so that you do nothing. First, I think we should get more ships registered with us and then think of the consequences, if any, later.

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. 3.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill which is now before the House seeks to amend the law relating to legitimacy of one's children. Although it is a general principle of English law that children born out of wedlock may, nevertheless, become legitimate children of their parents if and when their parents subsequently marry after the birth of such children, this has not been the case in Singapore in regard to all members of our several communities. This anomaly in the law has resulted from the fact that our society seeks to accord the respect due to such personal laws of the various sects and religions that form part of our multi-racial population. And so it is that those members of our society that belong to the Muslim faith are governed by their own personal laws in respect of such matters as marital laws, family laws and laws of succession. Those of the Muslim faith, therefore, are governed by those precepts of the Muslim law as would be applicable to the respective schools of Muslim law to which they belong. However, the general precepts of Muslim law were consolidated in the very comprehensive Administration of Muslim Law Act which was passed in 1966. That Act specifically provides that members of our society who belong to the Muslim faith are obliged to register their marriages at the Shariah Court. Unfortunately, although it is so provided in that Act that such registration of marriages must take place, it was not provided in regard to children that were born of legal marriages, should they be born out of wedlock, that they would receive the consequential benefits of having their status altered and becoming legitimate children of their parents. In other words, Sir, the principle of legitimatio per subsequens matrimonium was not afforded to them. This obvious omission should, in fact, have been taken care of in the Act of 1966 itself. It is therefore to provide for this hiatus in the law, i.e., legitimation of children born of such marriages, that the present Legitimacy (Amendment) Bill is being introduced. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.59 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with the exception of those people of the Muslim faith, what will happen to our citizens born out of wedlock and whose parents do not subsequently get married? Are they going to be labelled for the rest of their lives as bastards? Or will they be ordinary citizens of ours and not have the stigma of bastards?

Sir, if the parents refuse to marry, then, of course, the children will he illegitimate. The Legitimacy (Amendment) Bill covers only cases where parents marry after a child or children are born. So until the date of the marriage, the children are illegitimate. But when they marry, that act of marrying makes the children legitimate. But unless the parents are married, I am afraid the children will still be illegitimate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the point I am getting at is, what will happen to our citizens whose parents were never married? Will they carry on for the rest of their lives as illegitimate citizens of this country in the eyes of the law, and what happens when they hold passports, and so on?

Perhaps they are not illegitimate citizens of the country but are illegitimate children of their parents.

Sir, legitimacy has nothing to do with citizenship. Whether the children are born out of wedlock or whether or not their parents are married does not affect their citizenship. But if the children are illegitimate and if the father or mother dies intestate, they do not share in the distribution of the estate unless, of course, there is a will. But illegitimate children can still be citizens - if that is what has been worrying the Member for Joo Chiat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think what is in the mind of the Member for Joo Chiat is the status of the child who is born illegitimate and whose parents subsequently do not marry, and whose status as citizens has not been disclosed, because the issue becomes a citizen of the state only if at the time of his birth his parents are citizens of the state.

I believe there is a provision in the Constitution which says "one of whose parents is a Singapore citizen". So if one parent is a citizen it is immaterial if they are not married at the time of the child's birth.

Sir, if the status is not disclosed at the time of the birth of the child, then the issue cannot be said to be a citizen of the state. I think that is what is in the mind of the Member for Joo Chiat. Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng rose -

Mr Yeoh, I take it that you are seeking a further point of clarification and not making another speech?

Sir, another point which I have in mind is this. Can illegitimate children who subsequently grow up become Ministers of State or Ministers?

Do you have anybody in mind?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to ask the Minister one question. When an illegitimate child grows up and marries, will he still be illegitimate?

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of children who are born out of wedlock, I do not think there is any difficulty in so far as citizenship is concerned, because the child will follow the citizenship of the mother. There is no need for the child to have a parent or father who is a citizen of Singapore for the purpose of becoming a citizen of Singapore.

The debate on the Second Reading cannot be used as an excuse for seeking legal advice from the Minister.

Sir, first, if I may deal with the Member for Sembawang who asked whether the subsequent marriage of the child, when he is of age, will make him legitimate. It can never make him legitimate. If he marries, his children will be legitimate. With regard to the queries by the Member for Joo Chiat and the Member for Serangoon Gardens, I think they have been answered by the Member for Bukit Panjang. But there are difficulties when children are born out of wedlock, because sometimes the father is disclosed in the birth certificate or a notification of birth. Sometimes, of course, the father's name is not disclosed. But if the children are illegitimate, then the father, whoever he may be, has no right whatsoever over the child. It is the mother who has the sole right to the child. Therefore, the citizenship of the child will follow that of the mother.

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. 4.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Public Utilities (Amendment) Bill proposes a number of amendments which, it is considered, in the light of experience gained in the administration of the Public Utilities Ordinance since it was brought into force in 1963, will make administration more effective. The Bill makes provision for the transfer of powers vested in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara (now the President) under the Ordinance to the Minister. The amendments provided for this, under clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, will bring the Ordinance in line with the Port of Singapore Authority Ordinance, 1963, the Housing and Development Ordinance, 1959, and the Telephone Board Ordinance (Cap. 107), wherein the appointments to the Board thereunder are made by the Minister. With the expansion of the Public Utilities Board's functions and activities and the tremendous increase in the work which members of the Board have to undertake, it has become necessary to expand the membership of the Board. It is, therefore, proposed, under clause 2 of the Bill, to increase the member ship of the Board from nine to 12. Consequent on this increase, the quorum at meetings of the Board will also be increased from five to seven, which is in clause 4 of the Bill. Provision is made under clause 5 of the Bill for the Public Utilities Board to collect fees for services rendered by the Government or any of its departments or any statutory body. The amendment will also empower the Board to grant or guarantee loans to its employees to enable them to purchase houses for their use or for any other purposes specifically approved by the Board as being likely to increase the efficiency of the employees. The new subsection (1) introduced by clause 6 of the Bill gives the Board power to appoint committees from among its members. The new subsection (2) under this clause will enable the Board to delegate to its committees certain of its powers, functions and duties. At present the Board is empowered under section 22 (1) of the Ordinance to delegate such powers, functions and duties only to its employees. The enlargement of the membership of the Board, and the power to appoint committees to which certain powers, functions and duties can be delegated will not only relieve the Board of some of its onerous duties but will also enable the Board to conduct its affairs more expeditiously. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.13 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is obvious that there is a necessity for enlarging the composition of the Board. From the reports of the Board, the electricity generation has doubled from the time the Board took over, and the consumption of water and gas has increased by more than 50 per cent. However, I do not consider that by increasing the membership of the Board it will be able to cope with such expansion. The United Kingdom Central Electricity Generation Board, for example, has more full-time members than the Public Utilities Board has. If we can align the composition of the Public Utilities Board with that of the United Kingdom Central Electricity Generation Board, it is likely that the efficiency of the Board can be further improved. Sir, I note that with the resignation of the previous Deputy Chairman of the Board, the loss of whose services we have greatly felt, there are, at present, no technical personnel sitting on the Board whose functions are mainly concerned with the installation and supply of public utilities such as power, water and gas. Can the Minister give an assurance that at least some technical personnel will be appointed on the Board so that they may be able to give competent advice? Sir, I am not doubting the ability of the present members of the Board. But I am sure that with technical men sitting on the Board, they will be of great assistance. Sir, I have gone through the reports of the Public Utilities Board since its inception in 1963, and 1 have found that it has gone to great lengths to publicise the activities and achievements of the Board. If I am not mistaken, sometime in 1964 or 1965, the Board appointed some American consultants to look into the administration and organisation of the Board. But since 1963, and up to the latest report which we have, that is 1966, no mention has been made about this whatsoever.

Mr Low, I find it difficult to see how the line of argument you are now pursuing arises out of the Bill.

Sir, I just want to show why an expansion of the membership of the Board is necessary

Please proceed, Mr Low

Under the provisions of the new clause in the amendment Bill, there should be a standing committee comprising Board members to look into the question of administration or organisation, because there is an apparent drop in the efficiency of the staff of the Board. I will quote one example. Not long ago, a member of the public paid a deposit for the supply of gas. But after repeat, ed inquiries, nothing happened. It was only when I rang up that the whole matter was solved in two days and the gas supply was turned on. This shows that there is a drop in the general efficiency of the Board. I think the setting up of a standing committee to look into the organisation and daily functions of the Board is urgent. That is why I have said that there may be a necessity for more full-time members to sit on the Board. Sir, I also feel that a standing committee should be set up to look into the de-salinisation of water with the co-operation of the Ministry of Science and Technology.

Order. Mr Low, I am afraid I have to rule that you are in breach of the Standing Orders as the subjects you have raised are not relevant to the provisions of the Bill. If you have any comments on the increase in the size of the Board, or the additional powers of the Board, or the power to appoint sub-committees under clause 6, please address your remarks to those points.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to stress the necessity for standing committees because of the increase in the Board membership. In any case, I accept your ruling. I have concluded my speech.

Sir, the Bill seeks to increase the membership of the Board from nine to 12. The Member for Crawford wants to go further. I do not know whether he is right, but I would appeal to him to let this go for some time, and if we find that 12 are not sufficient, we will come back here and get more members on the Board. But a dozen is quite a big number and any Board beyond that number might become too big and unwieldy. The Member is correct when he says that with the retirement of the previous Deputy Chairman of the Board, there are hardly any others left with engineer ing experience. But new members of the Board will be appointed soon and I assure the Member that at least one will be an engineer who will be of great assistance in the Board. Of course, I must remind the Member that there are engineers in the Public Utilities Board and, if not in the Board, at least in the Electricity Department or the Water Department or the Gas Department. As for standing committees, there are standing committees but they have no blessing of the law behind them. Hence this Bill, one of the clauses of which empowers the Board to delegate its powers and duties to smaller subcommittees. As for some of the other points raised by the Member, I will not reply to him since you, Mr Speaker, Sir, have ruled him out of order. But I can make one suggestion. Perhaps on some other occasion if he will file questions in Parliament on previous commissions and what the Public Utilities Board is doing about de-salinisation, I will do my best to answer him.

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. 4.24 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The law enforced in Singapore relating to copyright is the Copyright Act, 1911, of the United Kingdom, as modified by the Copyright Ordinance (Chapter 176). The Copyright Act, 1911, was repealed by the Copyright Act, 1956, of the United Kingdom. However, the repeal did not apply to Singapore and the 1956 Act was never extended to Singapore. Sir, it is not the intention of this Bill to make comprehensive changes to the present law as was done by the 1956 Act of the United Kingdom. The Bill, as Members will note, is quite limited in scope and deals with two immediate problems - to prevent the piracy of gramophone records and to exempt the Government from infringement of copyright in respect of radio and television broadcasting. As regards the first problem, there has been over the past year or so a large increase in the importation and sale of pirated records of musical works with subsisting copyright. Many of such pirated records are of sound recordings made in Singapore and the royalties which are due to local artistes and composers and the employment of local musicians are somewhat in jeopardy.

4.27 p.m. The newly established industries -there are three of them - for the manufacture of phonograph records in Singapore are also seriously threatened. For these reasons, penalties for the infringement of copyright in gramophone records are urgently required. Thus clause 3 of the Bill provides that any person who makes, reproduces, imports for sale, exposes or offers for sale or has in his possession for sale any pirated copies of any gramophone record, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000, and in the case of a second or a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to both such imprisonment or fine. However, it shall be a defence if such person proves that he had no reason to suspect that he was dealing with pirated copies of gramophone records, that he had given all information in his power to the police or the prosecutor, and that he had acted innocently in the matter. A police officer is also empowered to arrest without warrant any person who sells or exposes for sale any pirated copies of any gramophone record in a public place. Any person who has in his possession five or more pirated copies of any gramophone record shall be deemed to be in possession of such copies for sale. Provision is made under clause 4 of the Bill to empower a Magistrate to grant a search warrant authorising any police officer to enter the premises named therein to search for and seize any copies of any gramophone record which appear to be pirated copies. All copies of a gramophone record so seized shall be brought before a court and, if they are proved to be pirated copies, shall be delivered to the owner of the copyright of such record or dealt with as the court thinks fit. To facilitate the prosecution of such offences, clause 5 of the Bill provides that an affidavit made before a notary public by or on behalf of the owner of the copyright in any gramophone record may be admitted in evidence and shall be prima facie evidence of the matters stated therein.

4.31 p.m. As regards the second problem, the Broadcasting Department of the Ministry of Culture is paying to account a fixed sum each year to the Performing Rights Society, London, for the performing right in sound recordings broadcast over Radio and Television Singapura. Claims for royalties have also been received by the Broadcasting Department from the International Federation of Phonographic Industry and the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society. It is estimated that if all these claims have to be met, the Broadcasting Department will have to pay quite a substantial sum each year in respect of its use of sound recordings made abroad. In addition, expenditure will also have to be incurred by the Broadcasting Department to keep a record or records of the number of times each sound recording is broadcast for the purpose of determining the royalties payable to these organisations. As Radio and Television Singapura provide an essential service, it is in the interest of the public that the cost of this service be kept as low as possible. Hence the Bill provides that the copyright in a musical work or gramophone record is not infringed by the Government when it causes the musical work or gramophone record to be heard in public by means of a radio or television broadcast. Clause 6 of the Bill further provides that the copyright in a musical work is not infringed by the Government when it makes a record, tape or other device in respect of that work solely for the purpose of being used in radio or television broadcast. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am raising my query not to seek a legal opinion from the Minister but to seek clarification in respect of clause 6 (2) of the Bill. The Bill contains provisions which empower Radio and Television Singapura to make records or tape from gramophone records and telecast and broadcast the taped records. Am I right in assuming that one can make a record or tape the broadcast which has already been taped by Radio and Television Singapura without infringing the provisions of the Bill? If my interpretation is correct, will the Bill not open itself to abuse by pirates?

May I know if it is the usual custom for other countries to have a clause similar to clause 6 of the Bill?

Mr Speaker, Sir, while I would welcome this Bill, clause 6 is a bit difficult because it tends to expropriate property rights. In order to justify this clause, I would like to know how much Government proposes to save by validating its action in recording these materials.

If I may deal with the Member for Telok Blangah first. If anyone tapes from Radio and Television Singapura and uses it outside, it will be piracy. If the Member for Telok Blangah has a tape recorder at home, tapes and records from T.V. Singapura and uses it in public, he will be liable to the penalties provided for under this Act. The Member for Joo Chiat wants to know whether there is similar legislation to that provided in clause 6 elsewhere. The answer is - if there is, I am not aware of such legislation. The Member for Bukit Panjang talks of expropriation and he wants to know what is the amount involved. I am afraid I cannot give him the details. I am not the Minister for Culture. Unfortunately, he is not here. But I am sure he will be happy to provide the Member with figures. But I would like to assure the Member that we have no intention of making this Bill retrospective. What is past is past. This Bill provides for the future.

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.

4.41 p.m. Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 - Question proposed, "That clause 6 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, I crave your indulgence in taking this opportunity to answer the query raised by the Member for Bukit Panjang. The Broadcasting Department has been paying royalty fees to some international bodies. In fact, they are United Kingdom based organisations. One is the Performing Rights Society, London. We pay the Society a fixed sum of about $25,000 a year. The other is the International Federation of Phonographic Industry, to which a sum of $15,000 is paid. In the past, a directive came from the then Governor that we would have to pay royalties, and we did pay. There was no reason given why we should pay. But in the colonial days the directive came from the Governor, and it was complied with. The Performing Rights Society, London, claims to represent international authors and composers in respect of royalties to be paid. This body and the International Federation of Phonographic Industry have claimed in recent years an increase in the sum payable to them on the grounds that we have extended the hours of radio broadcasts and that recently we have introduced television. We have considered this problem. Let me put it this way. Broadcasting in Singapore is a Government institution. The motivation is, therefore, not profit. Whatever entertainment and information we provide through this medium is a kind of education for our people. It is unlike other commercial stations in the world, if it were, I would have supported the payment of royalties. Although Radio and Television Singapura is partially commercialised, as I said earlier, the entertainment and other programmes provided through this medium are not profit motivated. As such, we feel that it is imperative that we should keep the cost of broadcasting as low as possible for the benefit of the public.

May I have your indulgence, Sir? Members may be interested to know, whilst we are on clause 6, that though Singapore has attended many international conferences on protection of copyrights, designs and patents, we are not a signatory to any international convention on copyrights. We have not signed because it is the developed countries that have the know-how and knowledge of these matters. They have in the past refused or have been rather reluctant to help developing countries increase their knowledge of this subject. This Act provides for protection of copyrights and, in fact, it is welcomed by international bodies like the Performing Rights Society of London, it provides them considerable protection from piracy. The amounts paid by Government, as mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, are small when compared to the extent of protection afforded to copyright owners. I think I had better state here openly that we have received representations from these societies. They welcome the Bill, but they have asked us to reconsider the provisions of clause 6. We have considered their representations and decided to proceed with clause 6.

May I crave your indulgence, Mr Speaker, Sir? The consequence of what the Minister said just now is that we should not sign the International Convention on Copyrights and Patents. If we do, then, of course, we might have to amend clause 6, which might otherwise become illegal.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if we have clause 6, I am afraid one day the result will be such that even the poorest type of films or musical shows of any kind will not be obtainable for Radio and T.V. Singapura.

Sir, I am not quite clear about what the Member for Joo Chiat has said. Perhaps he might care to repeat it.

Sir, I am thinking in terms of musical films of any kind for T.V.

That is quite simple, Sir. When we hire the films, we pay for the hiring of the films and we are not liable. It is the film distributors who will be liable. I am sure they have already made arrangements with the international body concerned.

Sir, I would like to assure the Member for Bukit Panjang that we are not a member of inter national conventions and we have no intention of becoming a signatory to these conventions. The reason, I repeat, is that these conventions are for the benefit of the developed countries who refuse to share their knowledge with us. It is for this reason that a Bill of this nature was not passed before. I have mentioned that three industries have been set up in Jurong producing musical records and it is for the protection of these industries that this Bill is introduced. The Member for Joo Chiat is a little worried about not getting films. I think the answer is quite simple. Unless we pay for our films, the film distributors will not let us have them.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." -[Mr Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes to Five o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed.