Hansard, 1970-03-30

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 (or any committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Low Guan Onn (River Valley) - from 2nd to 30th April. 1970. Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang) - from 3rd to 17th April, 1970. Mr S. Rajaratnam (Kampong Glam), Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour - from 9th to 18th April, 1970. YEOH GHIM SENG, Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether an investigation has been conducted into the circumstances which caused the collapse of the concrete beams for a flyover at Thomson Road during the beam-laying operation, resulting in the tragic death of a hawker.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Works Department is conducting a thorough investigation into the circumstances which caused the collapse of the concrete beams during the erection of the flyover under construction at Thomson Road. As a result of the beams collapsing and causing the death of a hawker, the police are making investigations and in due course there will be a coroner's inquiry into the cause of death.

Pending the result of the police investigation, has the Minister taken sufficient precautionary measures to prevent incidents of this nature from recurring again?

The P.W.D. knows best and has already taken precautionary measures.

asked the Minister for Health what measures he proposes to take for the control of hawkers at work sites of building projects

Mr Speaker, Sir, the current policy with regard to hawkers at construction sites is that cooked food and hot/cold drinks hawkers are permitted to ply at large construction sites provided that: (a) there are no facilities nearby where the construction workers can buy food or drinks: (b) such hawker does not cause obstruction or inconvenience to the general public: (c) such hawker keeps his stall and the immediate vicinity clean and free of litter: (d) the hawker dismantles his stall and moves away as soon as the construction is completed. Officials of the Hawkers Branch have been instructed to control these hawkers in accordance with the policy I have described. As any construction site cannot be prescribed for hawkers, the hawkers who are permitted to ply thereat are not licensed. This permits prosecution of the hawker for remaining at the site after the construction is completed. Authority to prosecute the hawker for failing to keep his stall and vicinity clean or for causing obstruction is contained in the Hawkers Regulations and the Public Cleansing Regulations made under the Environmental Public Health Act, 1968.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Parliamentary Secretary explain why licences are not issued to hawkers doing business at construction sites?

(In Mandarin): Just now I said that if there are no stalls selling food or drinks near the construction sites, we will allow hawkers to ply there. This is because these hawkers are only temporary there. When the work at the construction site is completed, they will be asked to go away. At present, there are many construction sites we have to take care of, but the number of such hawkers plying there is very few. Therefore, we do not intend to issue licences to them.

2.35 p.m.

"to amend the Stamp Ordinance (Chapter 170 of the Revised Edition)", 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.

2.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Minor Offences Ordinance (Chapter 117 of the Revised Edition)." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the Minor Offences (Amendment) Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed or printed copies of the Bill available for distribution to Members?

Yes, Sir. Printed copies of the Bill distributed to Members.

Will Members please note that the copies of the Bill which have just been handed out differ from the copies which have been previously circulated, in that subsection (2) of new section 6 in clause 2 of the Bill has been redrafted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, during the Chinese New Year festive season, particularly on Chap Goh Meh, considerable damage to both persons and property was caused by the indiscriminate firing of crackers. A total of 29 incidents were officially reported; 25 persons were injured out of whom six died, one is still warded in hospital, while the remaining 18 have been discharged. Nine houses were damaged by fire and the total estimated value of the damage is assessed at $560,390. The loss of lives and the extent of damage have thus rendered it expedient and necessary to amend existing legislation on the subject. Although cracker firing has been totally banned in countries like Hong Kong, West Malaysia and Indonesia, it is not our intention to place a total ban on the discharge of fireworks. We intend instead, to enforce very strict control over those who indiscriminately indulge in such activities without due regard to persons or property. Patterns of social behaviour must of necessity keep step with changes in standards and living conditions if grievous consequences to all are to be avoided. Where civic-responsibility and social-consciousness are lacking, human behaviour has to be regulated by means of social legislation. Much as we dislike to inhibit the enjoyment of some, the present amendment to the Minor Offences Ordinance has to be made if we are to prevent a repetition of the disastrous events on Chap Goh Meh. At present, section 6 of the Minor Offences Ordinance, which came into force in 1966, does not prohibit the letting off of fire crackers unless specifically prohibited by the Deputy Commissioner of Police in the Gazette. It is now proposed to amend section 6 of the Ordinance to revert to the position before 1966, and to resuscitate the original regulations relating to the control, and firing of fire crackers. That is to say, there would not be a total ban on the discharge of fireworks but a general prohibition will be introduced which may be lifted by way of a Gazette Notification from time to time or by the issuance of licences for personal or other reasons to individuals or public bodies by the Deputy Commissioner of Police or his authorised representative. Such orders or licences may relate not only to specified dates, times and places wherein fireworks may be discharged, but also to particular types of fireworks that could be discharged or other conditions that the Deputy Commissioner of Police may deem it necessary to impose. Administratively, for the purposes of implementation of the law, private persons or public bodies granted licences to let off fireworks under the Act will be identified by the use of special flags, pendants or other means to be displayed in those areas which are designated. The Police will charge a fee for the issue of such licences. It is also expressly provided that no order published or licence issued under the Act shall be held to relieve any person or body from liability in the event that any damage, loss or injury to persons or property is occasioned by the discharge of fireworks. The penalty for an offence under section 6 of the Act has been enhanced from a fine not exceeding $100 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month to a fine not exceeding $500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and imprisonment. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill, tabled on a Certificate of Urgency, is the direct result of several deaths and considerable damage to property caused by cracker explosions and fires which broke out in some parts of the Republic during the recent Chap Goh Meh celebrations. We all agree that on festive occasions, one has a right to rejoice. To express joy and happiness, several forms of celebrations are planned and held, one of which is to let off crackers galore. This is especially true on Chinese New Year, Hari Raya Puasa and other festive occasions. But more so on Chap Goh Meh when long strings of crackers, strung up several storeys high, are let off in many parts of the city. So-called "cracker wars" are held and, as a result, thousands of dollars are literally burnt away. Whoever wins a war of this nature gains, in fact, nothing. On the contrary, I believe he is poorer by several hundreds or maybe thousands of dollars, though he may believe that he will be prosperous as a result of firing crackers. Sir, clearly there was some form of carelessness or indiscriminate throwing of crackers, resulting in outbreaks of fire and bringing misery and untold hardship to others. I felt deeply disgusted and aghast when I read in the papers of the deaths and of those who suffered burns in the Chap Goh Meh disaster. That was senseless and, therefore, the timely appearance of the Minor Offences (Amendment) Bill will, I hope, bring home some sense to those who are responsible for such deaths and suffering. This Bill has my full support. But I wish to seek clarification on two points. Firstly, the Deputy Commissioner of Police is empowered to issue orders by a Gazette notification authorising the discharge of fireworks on certain fixed days during certain fixed hours and within certain defined areas. Sir, I do not know whether the defined areas are going to be workable in the light of the Minister's explanation. I feel that it will not work in the city as there is hardly any open space except in the parks. Therefore, those who wish to let off crackers must forgather there "to fight it out", so to say. And will they or will they not agree that such defined areas will eventually be littered with cracker paper? I feel that they will. If so, who is to clear up the mess, especially if the fireworks are let off in the parks or fields? Sir, will it not be better to have the firing of crackers carried out under controlled conditions? For example, I would suggest that the Government consider a total ban on the firing of long strings of crackers and only approve the firing of smaller packets of crackers. But even so, this also poses attendant problems, especially for those living in Housing and Development Board flats and other high-rise buildings. Secondly, will the Minister not consider the setting up of a committee or committees with a view to calling on those who wish to let off crackers during the festive seasons to donate the money instead to charitable and welfare organisations? I am sure this will bring real happiness all round. After all, occasions like Han Raya Puasa, Chinese New Year and Deepavali, to name a few, mean joy and happiness to the people in general. Therefore, by contributing generously on such occasions to charity, those in receipt of it will be all the happier for it. Sir, I beg to support the Bill. 2.52 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the firing of crackers to celebrate certain festivals and on certain auspicious occasions is a habit as well as a custom of the Chinese. In recent years, the people of Singapore, irrespective of their race, creed, faith and language, have been living in close contact and harmony with one another. So under this influence not only do the Chinese celebrate their festivals and auspicious occasions by firing crackers but other races also resort to this means to celebrate. The Minister for Defence has introduced this amendment Bill which will inconvenience and embarrass those people who want to fire crackers, and put them in some sort of difficulty. When this Bill is passed into law, the firing of crackers will be prohibited and there will not be liveliness and merry-making during festivals. Sir, this is the first time that the firing of crackers has caused deaths and loss of property in Singapore. I think this Bill may lead to abuse and to other unpleasant consequences. For instance, at the meet-the-people sessions, there will be crowds of people complaining to Members of Parliament about the banning of the firing of crackers and about matters regarding the issue of licences. I think the Minister himself will also meet with this kind of situation. In view of the recent incidents, what we should do is to look into the causes of these incidents and study whether the manufacture and the contents of fire crackers have been against our laws. This is the first time such incidents happened in Singapore. This is also the first time that the people of Singapore resorted to the purchase of locally-produced fire crackers and the manufacturers had been working round the clock to meet the local demand. In this respect, I would like to ask the Minister whether the department concerned has analysed the contents of the various brands of fire crackers. I feel that imported fire crackers should not be banned, but investigations should be made into the causes of the incidents. 2.57 p.m.

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment Bill has been introduced at a very opportune moment. I have been living in Singapore for the last 42 years. On every festive occasion, fire crackers are let off. But only this year were there disastrous consequences of cracker firing, and the Minister should investigate into the incidents. We should look into the cause of the trouble. It seems somebody burned a house down because it was bug-infested. Laws are made for the welfare of the people. But the penalty imposed by this Bill is rather excessive. The maximum penalty is $500. All festive occasions are celebrated by cracker firing. Therefore, there should be a provision in the law that crackers may be let off during festive occasions. We must find out the reasons why crackers are let off. In the past, crackers were let off without harmful consequences. Why is it that crackers are let off indiscriminately nowadays with loss of lives and damage to property? We must look into the manufacture of the crackers and see what substances are used. I commend this piece of legislation. But I must repeat that the penalty is excessive. Some children may let off crackers indiscriminately, and where are their parents going to find the money to pay for their offences? Therefore, I would say that the provisions in the Bill should be re-examined. It should be sent to Select Committee. 2.59 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been firing crackers ever since I was a boy. I am now 66 years old and I still fire crackers. However, I have never injured myself and I have never heard of any deaths caused by the firing of crackers. Therefore, we must look into the reasons why the firing of crackers can cause deaths and injuries. We should not impose a total ban on cracker firing. It is not right to do so. For example, the Minister for Science and Technology will be going to Ulu Pandan very soon to officiate at a certain ceremony, and crackers will be let off in his honour. We will have to fix a place for the firing of crackers. This is not very convenient. Therefore, I am totally against this provision in the Bill. We should allow people to choose their own places to fire crackers. It is not right for Government to fix a place for people to fire crackers. We must allow them the freedom to fire crackers whenever and wherever they like. We must not be like children and do whatever we like.

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

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now several Back-benchers have made some comments on the Bill and I hope the Minister will reply.

The Minister will do so now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, of the four speakers, two of them fully support the Bill, one is against it, and one, not understanding the purpose of the Bill, is probably neither for nor against it. I do not know what his stand is. Anyway, I will take the two points raised by the Member for Punggol. He seeks clarification on what is meant by "defined areas". In this respect, I wish to seek the assistance of all Members of Parliament, the management committees of the respective community centres, and the Citizens' Consultative Committees, in helping to find suitable areas for the letting off of crackers during festive occasions. The Deputy Commissioner of Police will then be directed to specify those areas for the firing of crackers which Members of Parliament, with members of their own constituencies, have decided upon.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

Is the Minister prepared to give way? Mr Lim Kim San resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, people celebrate their New Year or other festivals in their respective homes. How can they celebrate them in the community centre or other open places? Can the Minister answer that?

I believe the Member for Anson supports the Bill and he wants the firing of crackers to be controlled. That is the only way we know of controlling it. If we allow everyone to fire crackers freely and indiscriminately in their own homes, we will have a repetition of what has happened. I hope that clarifies the point the Member has made. Of course, it would be preferable if, out of their own feeling for the community and out of civic consciousness, those who participate in firing crackers in the specified areas will do the cleaning up of the areas themselves. I am sure my colleague, the Minister for Health, will have his burden relieved, especially during the Chinese New Year, if those who indulge in firing crackers help to clear up the area.

Hear, hear!

I hope there will be a large proportion of the public who will heed the call of the Member for Punggol, and, instead of spending their money on the futility of firing crackers or engaging in a fire-cracker war, donate their money to charity or to the Defence Fund. Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, I did mention that if there is no social consciousness in the habits of the people, we have to regulate their behaviour by social legislation. This is exactly what has happened here. Those who indulged in firing crackers during the Chap Goh Meh festival showed a lack of responsibility and social consciousness and, as a result, six people lost their lives. One person is still warded in hospital. I do not know whether the Member for Ulu Pandan is very happy when people are able to fire crackers whilst others die. If that is his idea of celebrating an occasion, then I think we have got to change his idea, before it is too late-

(In Mandarin): Sir, let me make my points clear. The Minister for Defence said he did not understand what I said just now. He said it was futile to fire crackers. However, in the past whenever the Prime Minister toured the constituencies and the Ministers went to the rural areas, they were welcomed by the people there by the firing of crackers. I would like the Minister to withdraw what he has said just now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the Member for Ulu Pandan is not aware that, as a result of one of the many welcoming receptions that Ministers had in which a lot of crackers were fired, some of us have suffered from deafness because of the noise. I for one find it difficult to hear with my left ear just because on one occasion the welcome was most uproarious indeed. The point I want to make is this. Do we want to allow a few irresponsible persons to celebrate a festive occasion in such a way that it can cause damage and endanger the lives of the majority of the people? I think, by and large, the feeling is that we should not allow such a dangerous practice to continue. It may be that the incidents that happened during Chap Goh Meh may have been the result of faulty manufacture of the fire crackers. On that score, we are taking legal action to see that those who manufacture fire crackers and do not conform to the safety regulations required for their manufacture will be prosecuted. Incidentally, Mr Speaker, Sir, before I conclude, I would like to draw the attention of Members to page 3 of the Bill in which it says: '(7) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (5) of this section, the expression "firework" or "fireworks" includes "fire crackers and sand crackers.".'

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the second and third readings of the Supply Bill for the financial year 1st April, 1970 to 31st March, 1971 and the Supplementary Supply Bill, 1970, be taken today." - [Dr Goh Keng Swee].

Order for Second and Third Readings read. 3.10 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 April, 1970, to 31st March, 1971, have been considered and approved by the House as Cmd. Paper No. 4 of 1970. 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 April, 1970, to 31st March, 1971. 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 and appear in pages 55 and 56 of Cmd. Paper 4 of 1970. Once the Supply Bill is approved, I will be empowered to issue warrants authorising expenditure up to the amount under each head as shown in the Bill to be paid out from the Consolidated Fund. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Dr Goh, 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. 3.13 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 authorised by the Supply Act, 1968. These additional sums have been scheduled as Supplementary Estimates which have been considered and approved by the House as Cmd. Paper No. 7 of 1970. 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. 3.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Subsection (lA) of section 10 of the Income Tax Ordinance provides relief for owner-occupiers of residential premises by exempting from the computation of income the net annual value of the property up to $3,000. The annual values of properties have risen in recent years, and the Property Tax Department is doing a revaluation exercise on properties whose values are outdated. It has revised the values upwards in a number of cases. In order that the benefit of relief to owner-occupiers is not restricted by the limit of $3,000, the amendment seeks to empower the Minister to determine, by an Order, the maximum amount which will not be subject to tax in respect of the net annual value of any one owner-occupied property. Members will recall that the House was informed on the 17th of this month, in reply to a question by the Member for Thomson, that it was intended to increase the exemption limit from $3,000 to $6,000. The amendment as proposed will permit this to be done and also any subsequent variations of the maximum amount as and when required. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.17 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst supporting this Bill, I wish to seek clarification and an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. Sir, this Bill in a way will benefit owner-occupied properties which carry an annual value of not more than $6,000. But in my view it will not help those owners who have to pay property tax on owner-occupied property of an annual value of $6,000; let it be at a concessionary rate of 18 per cent, 23 per cent or 27 per cent. In other words, if an owner-occupied property is today assessed at an annual value of $3,000, it can be reviewed annually, and in most cases it is revalued upwards. Therefore, more property tax will be paid as the annual value is reviewed each year. My contention is this: whilst one benefits from exemption of income tax in respect of owner-occupied property valued at not more than $6,000, such a property, if revalued upwards, will carry a higher property tax. Under such circumstances, I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance could assure this House that properties which are considered sufficiently assessed or valued today will not be revalued next year or the following year.

Sir, I am afraid I cannot give such an assurance to the Member for Punggol. In fact, "annual value" is defined by the Property Tax Ordinance as the value that a house can be let out unfurnished, the owner paying for its maintenance and repairs. In order to get the correct annual value, the property should be revalued every year so that it will correctly reflect its current market value. The Member for Punggol is asking us not to do that very thing, an annual revaluation, so that the annual value of a property can reflect its market value. When this Bill comes into operation, any property having an annual value of more than $6,000 will attract income tax. In my reply to the Member for Thomson on the question of property tax a few days ago, I did say that any property having an annual value of $6,000 is, in fact, very luxurious property. And there is no reason why a person living in such luxurious splendour should not pay income tax.

Sir, I think the Parliamentary Secretary completely missed my point. It is that if the annual value of a property is over and above the $6,000 limit, there is the imposition of income tax. And at the same time, Sir, there is also the question of property tax. In other words, there are two taxes coming under one income. I am not saying that properties should not be valued annually, but surely the officers in the Inland Revenue Department, in which the Property Tax Division is, should look into this aspect of owner-occupied properties.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid I do not know what assurance the Member for Punggol wants me to give. I thought he wanted me to give an assurance that properties would not be revalued year by year, and I said that I could not give that assurance. In fact, our very aim is to revalue properties annually so that their annual values could reflect their current market values. I am not too sure, Mr Speaker, Sir, what the Member for Punggol wants, but perhaps if he could simplify his question, I might be able to say whether or not I can give him the assurance he wants.

Sir, perhaps there is a confusion between property tax and income tax. My question is simply this. What I said just now was that those owner-occupied properties which have already been reasonably assessed should not be reassessed every year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already said that the very purpose of revaluation is to ensure that the property correctly reflects its market value, and that it should be done annually. I just do not understand what the Member wants. If he says that any annual value above $6,000 will attract income tax, that is not correct because it is only if the net annual value of the property is above $6,000 then it will attract income tax. The "net annual value" is defined as the gross annual value minus the property tax you pay, minus the premium you pay on insuring your property, minus maintenance, and also minus any interest that you may have to pay on mortgaging the property. But I suppose anybody who lives in a house that has a net annual value of $6,000 or above would have bought it outright and not have to pay any mortgage interest. I am still not quite sure what the Member wants, Sir. I think what he objects to is that any property having a net annual value of above $6,000 attracts income tax as well as property tax. Therefore, he says it is two taxes. That is not correct because any income is supposed to attract income tax, and a piece of property gives you a notional income. However, the Government is generous enough and now provides in the law that any property having a net annual value of less than $6,000 will not attract income tax on its annual value.

Sir, may I just seek clarification? Will this relief on income tax on a net annual value of less than $6,000 be made retrospective to the time when this annual value was raised?

Sir, consideration will be given to whether or not this exemption will be back-dated to the 1st January of this year. Sir, my attention has just been drawn to clause 1 of the Bill which says: 'This Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on the 1st day of January, 1970.'

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. 3.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." When Ngee Ann College was established in April 1963, it was registered under the Education Ordinance as a private institution and was financed and administered by the Ngee Ann Kongsi. It functioned then as a College of liberal arts, offering degree courses in Chinese Studies, Malay Studies, Home Economics and Commerce. In 1967, following acceptance by the Ngee Ann Kongsi of the recommendations contained in the Thong Saw Pak Report to reorganise Ngee Ann College into a Community College, it was reconstituted by Statute (No. 28 of 1967) with its management vested in a Council. In April 1968, a sum of $469,820 comprising $363,000 as capital expenditure and $106,820 as recurrent expenditure for the first year was given by Government to assist Ngee Ann College to provide courses geared to meet the growing demands for technical manpower in our Republic. A further grant of $987,750 was given by the Government to the College in 1969 to enable further expansion of the College in this direction. The first course conducted by the College in August 1968, as a result of its reorganisation was the three-year Mechanical Engineering Course, leading to a Technician Diploma. This was followed by the introduction of the Industrial Electronics Course in April 1969. All the old degree courses in Chinese Studies, Malay Studies, Home Economics and Commerce have been phased out, and only the Technician Diploma Course in Technical and Business Administration subjects will be conducted from now on. In a further move to support Ngee Ann College in its effort at reorganisation, the Government has recommended a reduction of tuition fees payable by Ngee Ann College students from $540 per annum to $300 per annum. To enable Ngee Ann College to do this, the Government has approved a further subsidy amounting to $100,000 per annum. The total subsidy by the Government for the coming financial year will amount to more than $1.1 million. In view of the reorganisation of Ngee Ann College into a College providing mainly technical education facilities, the name of the College, known as Ngee Ann College under section 3 of the Ngee Ann College Act, 1967, was administratively changed to that of Ngee Ann Technical College on 22nd August, 1968, by the Ngee Ann Council. This Bill is introduced to regularise the position, that is, to enable Ngee Ann College to assume the name of Ngee Ann Technical College with retrospective effect from 22nd August, 1968. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education the following questions: Firstly, what other courses of study, apart from the Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Electronics Courses, are being offered to students and what level of education do these courses lead to? I hope these courses are so organised that they will not duplicate the courses that are being organised by the Singapore Polytechnic and the other two institutions of tertiary education in the Republic, namely, the University of Singapore and Nanyang University. Secondly, I notice that the Government subsidy to Ngee Ann College stands at $1.1 million. In this respect, I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education would enlighten this House on what role the Ministry of Education plays apart from subvention. Lastly, I understand that there was a Principal of Ngee Ann College. Recently, there were advertisements for the post of Principal of Ngee Ann College in the local press. Could the Parliamentary Secretary enlighten the House on this? Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, other than the three-year Technician Diploma Course in Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Electronics, the College also runs a three-year course at the same level in Commerce and Business Administration. The College is also planning to enlarge the enrolment of these three courses. At the same time, it is planning to run a two-year course at the ordinary Technician Diploma level which is equivalent to the General Certificate of Industrial Technology offered by the Singapore Polytechnic in Engineering subjects, and also a course in Private Secretaryship. These courses run by Ngee Ann College will not duplicate, but Will supplement the courses conducted in other tertiary institutions. Despite the very substantial grant the Government has given to Ngee Ann College, the Government's role with respect to Ngee Ann College is similar to that with respect to Nanyang University. The supreme governing body of the College is vested in a Council of which three members are appointed by the Minister for Education. The Ministry of Education does quite frequently give general guidance and advice to the College in administrative and financial matters. There is a Principal at Ngee Ann College. She is on leave as from the 15th of March, 1970, prior to resignation. The administrative and academic management of the College is now vested in an Executive Committee until a suitably qualified candidate for the principalship is found. In the past, the Council has, on various occasions, invited applications, both overseas and locally, for the post of principal. Unfortunately, up to this date the College has not been able to find a suitable candidate.

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 Lee Chiaw Meng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The origin of the Asian Seamen's Club dates back to 1948. However, it was not until 1955 that the Singapore Asian Seamen's Club Incorporation Ordinance was passed which created a corporation entrusted with the task of establishing a Club for Asian seafarers. Work on the Club began in that year and the building was completed and declared open in February 1958. The Singapore Asian Seamen's Club Incorporation Ordinance has remained unchanged since it was enacted in 1955 - 15 years ago. Certain provisions are obsolete and others require amendments for more effective administration. One example of a provision in the Ordinance which has become obsolete is section 4 (d) which states that the Club should provide lectures in nautical and other subjects. This may have been necessary in the old days when there were no teaching facilities available, but the School of Nautical Studies, which was founded in our Polytechnic in 1960, makes this objective superfluous. This section has accordingly been deleted from the Bill. Section 7 (2) of the existing Ordinance provides that all members of the Committee except the Chairman would retire on expiration of their terms of office. It's considered for administrative reasons that this provision should also apply to the Chairman, and the Bill accordingly provides that the Chairman should also retire on expiration of his period of appointment. Section 7 (3) of the existing Ordinance states that a vacancy shall arise if a member is absent from Singapore for more than three months. The new section 7 (3) in the Bill amends this period to six months. This longer period is desirable on practical grounds, as some members do normally take long leave exceeding three months. Finally, the existing name "Asian Seamen's Club" is somewhat of an anachronism and the opportunity is therefore taken to rename the Club as "The Singapore Mariners' Club". Mr Speaker, 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. 3.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill now before this House has been introduced as a result of requests made from time to time by the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society and from the experience gained in the administration thereof since its coming into operation in 1967. After due consideration, the Government has decided to introduce these amendments in order to remove such doubts as to the practical applicability of the sections of the Act that are now being amended or because, as the law now stands, these sections in the Act have been found to be too restrictive. Hon. Members will find in this Bill provisions amending not only such technical portions of the Bill relating to annual certificates and provisions regulating the admission of Queen's Counsel from England and elsewhere in the Commonwealth, but also such important and substantive provisions defining the scope or type of work for which advocates and solicitors would have almost exclusive rights. The proposals for amendment to sections 37 and 38 of the Legal Profession Act, 1966, that define the limits of such exclusive rights have come from accountants and trade mark agents as well as from the General Council of the Bar itself. These amendments, it is hoped, will now resolve the doubts the professions might have had regarding the extent of such exclusive rights given to advocates and solicitors. There are further new provisions in the Bill which have been designed to facilitate the supervision of bills of costs submitted by advocates and solicitors. Up till now an order of court would be necessary before a bill can be taxed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court. When this Bill becomes law, this requirement would be dispensed with where the taxation of the bill is agreed to by the parties. The opportunity has also been taken to provide in this Bill certain amendments that would incorporate recent developments in the rules and practice governing the relationship between solicitors and clients in England. Thus we have adapted to suit local conditions here certain of the rules relating to moneys in clients' accounts. The provisions in the Bill effecting these amendments will permit a solicitor to place moneys belonging to a client in a deposit account with a bank so as to earn interest. Such interest will then be apportioned to the solicitor's client except, of course, where the task of allocating such interest earned is rendered impractical or well-nigh impossible on account of either the smallness of the sums involved or where the portions of such moneys cannot easily be defined or traced. Then there are other provisions in clauses 28 and 31 which would enlarge the powers of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council. These enlarged powers would enable the Council to take whatever steps they think proper against members of the profession who have been found to have committed breaches of professional conduct. These then are the main changes that will be brought about by this Bill. They have in common one main object, and that is, a more efficient administration of the Act. Mr Speaker, 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.

3.52 p.m. Clauses 1 to 9 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, to leave out lines 25 to 33 inclusive and insert -"(i) any accountant drawing or preparing documents in the exercise of his profession;". Sir, this amendment is being moved in accordance with the wishes of accountants in Singapore. It sets out more clearly what an accountant can do and cannot do. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 5, line 1, to leave out from "preparing" to the end of line 3 and insert "documents in any matter relating to trade marks.". Sir, this amendment is being moved on the suggestion of a trade mark agent. Trade mark agents, when applying for registration of trade marks, prepare quite a few documents. The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that, whilst doing this kind of work, they can prepare any type of documents, including statutory declarations or statements of claim. Amendment agreed to.

There is a note, In page 5, line 3, to leave out the marginal reference "Cap. 185.". This will be done. Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 11 to 39 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.56 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The intention of the Bill is to amend a number of provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code regulating Coroners' proceedings and concerning appeals in criminal matters to the Privy Council. The provisions in Chapter XXX of the Code require a Coroner to investigate the cause of death where a person dies or a dead body is found in certain circumstances, and ascertain whether any person is criminally concerned in the cause of death. The Code regulates the manner in which an investigation is to be carried out. In the formal part of his investigation, a Coroner sits either alone or with a jury of three to five persons. The proceeding is called an inquest or an inquiry, according to whether the Coroner sits with or without a jury. If the death occurs in a prison or under suspicious circumstances in an institution, the Coroner investigating it has until now been required to sit with a jury, but in most cases he has a discretion and sits alone. Where he finds that a crime has been committed, he may issue a warrant for the arrest of the person whom he thinks should be charged, but he makes no determination of that person's guilt. Hon. Members will recall that the recent Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1969, repealed those parts of the Code requiring that persons charged before the High Court with certain offences be tried by jury. The present Bill seeks likewise to remove juries from Coroners' proceedings. In doing so, it will bring these proceedings into line with trials in the criminal courts. The repeal of those provisions of the Code requiring or referring to Coroners' juries and the necessary consequential and formal amendments are contained in clauses 2 and 5 to 25 of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill are concerned with sections 285 and 286 of the Code. Originally, those sections ensured that the Privy Council's jurisdiction to hear criminal appeals was not affected by provisions such as section 284, and that the Privy Council's decisions would be given effect in Singapore. Since becoming independent, Singapore has made arrangements with the United Kingdom and passed the necessary legislation to secure the continuance of appeals to the Privy Council, to regulate them and to make the determination of appeals effective. Those laws are the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1966, the Judicial Committee Act, 1966, and the Judicial Committee (Amendment) Act, 1967. The present terms of sections 285 and 286 refer to the law concerning appeals as it was before the passing of those Acts, and the effect of this Bill is to make them conform with those Acts. 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.

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