Hansard, 1970-05-21

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: Inche A. Rahim Ishak (Siglap), Minister of State for Foreign Affairs - from 15th to 18th May, 1970. Dr Toh Chin Chye (Rochore), Minister for Science and Technology -Seng (Jalan Besar), Parliamentary on 21st May, 1970. Mr Chan Chee Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs - on 21st May, 1970. Inche Othman Bin Wok (Pasir Panjang), Minister for Social Affairs - from 21st to 26th May, 1970. Mr S. Rajaratnam (Kampong Glam), Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour - from 22nd to 24th May, 1970. Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol) - from 7th June to 2nd July, 1970. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

The following Bill was assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated; 13th May, 1970 Stamp (Amendment) Bill YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

Order. The hon. Member desirous of taking his seat will please come forward when his name is called. Dr Augustine Tan Hui-Heng (Whampoa) took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance.

2.32 p.m.

asked the Minister for Finance, in view of the Government's policy to build a rugged and robust society, if he will consider standardizing the normal working hours of civil servants to the hours from 8 a.m, to 4.30 p.m., so as to allow all civil servants more time in the evenings to partake in the various forms of exercise.

Mr Speaker, Sir, officers may at present opt to work on weekdays from 8.00 a.m, to 4.30 p.m, or from 8.30 a.m, to 5.00 p.m. Those who are interested to leave early to take part in exercises or sports are free to opt for 8.00 am, to 4.30 p.m. Forcing those who are not interested to leave office early will not achieve anything. As the saying goes, "You can lead a horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink."

asked the Minister for Education whether there is any insurance coverage against physical injury resulting from accidents for workshop instructors and students in industrial training centres and vocational institutes doing practical subjects.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose to answer this question in two parts. First of all, concerning the insurance coverage against physical injury resulting from accidents for workshop instructors, there is no separate insurance coverage against physical injury resulting from accidents for them in the industrial training centres and vocational institutes. But being public officers, if they sustain injuries in the course of discharging public duties, they are covered under two schemes. The first scheme is the Pensions Ordinance, 1956. Under Regulation 19 of this Ordinance, the quantum of compensation where payable as a result of injury is in addition to any pension, gratuity or other allowance granted under the same Ordinance. Subject to the provisions of the Ordinance, the quantum of the annual allowance payable as compensation ranges from 5/60ths (for slight impairment of earning capacity) to 1/3rd (for total destruction of earning capacity) of an officer's emoluments at the date of injury. The second scheme is the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance. Under this Ordinance, where a public officer (including a technical teacher, workshop instructor, workshop attendant, and workshop assistant) is classified as a "workman" and is in receipt of a salary not exceeding $400 per month, he is entitled to be compensated under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance provided he is not paid a pension or gratuity for such injury. The rate of compensation is governed by the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance. The second part of the question deals with insurance coverage for students. The Ministry assists students in taking personal accident insurance coverage when they are sent for practical training to any industrial establishment, job sites, and schools. Students are advised but not compelled to participate in the insurance scheme. So far all students concerned have joined the scheme, as the rate of premium is relatively low, i.e. $1 per student per month for a capital sum assured for $10,000. In the case of injury caused by the negligence or omission of the teacher or instructor in the vocational institutes, the Government and the teacher or instructor concerned are jointly liable, and it is for the injured party to determine which party or both parties to sue for damages. However, the school authorities will not be liable if all necessary precautions and safeguards have been taken to prevent accidents in schools. Adequate action has been taken to ensure that safety precautions are observed in all schools, vocational institutes and industrial training centres. Mr Speaker, Sir, the onus of providing insurance coverage against accidents not caused by negligence of the school authorities in industrial training institutions should rest on the parents, and I do urge parents to take insurance coverage for their own children.

(In Mandarin): Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary has stated that teachers of Government schools sent to the vocational institutes as instructors are covered under two schemes. But what about those teachers in the Government-aided schools?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if they draw a salary of less than $400 a month, they will come under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance. If they draw more than that, I presume they will sue the school authorities for damages.

asked the Minister for Defence if a survey has been made by the Police as to whether timber lorries using busy roads, like Nicoll Highway, in and near the City centre during peak periods are a cause of traffic congestion and a possible hazard to other road users; and whether and what remedial action will be taken.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is true that timber lorries travelling along the busy roads in and near the City centre during peak periods are a cause of traffic congestion and also a possible hazard to other road users, as they are huge vehicles carrying heavy loads and moving at a slow speed not exceeding 20 miles per hour. These lorries transport timber logs from the railway yard at Keppel Road to the various sawmills, most of which are situated in the Kallang Road and Lavender Street areas, and must inevitably travel through the City centre. It would not be conducive to our timber trade, however, if transportation of timber logs to sawmills were to be restricted to outside the peak periods of the day. The Traffic Police are watching the situation very carefully, and drivers of timber lorries are advised to keep to the left-hand side of the road so as not to hinder vehicular traffic and also endanger other road users. The Traffic Police are also taking stringent action against these lorry drivers for failure to comply with the traffic laws for speeding, for causing obstruction, and having smoky exhausts. For the whole year of 1969 and since the beginning of this year, no case of traffic accident involving timber lorries occurred in the City area. Mr Speaker, Sir, an area South of Kranji industrial estate is being developed by the Jurong Town Corporation for re-siting sawmills at present situated in various parts of the Republic. Those sawmills in the City area which will be affected by the urban renewal scheme will also be given alternative accommodation in this area. Once this project is completed, timber lorries will not and need not use the already heavily congested roads in and near the City centre.

asked the Minister for Social Affairs whether hawkers are eligible for public assistance allowance and, if not, why.

Mr Speaker, Sir, hawkers are not eligible for public assistance allowances as long as they are holders of a current hawker's licence. A licensed hawker is presumed to be in regular employment, and it is regretted that the Social Welfare Department cannot consider such cases for public assistance. This presumption is necessary as it is not possible to assess the actual income of hawkers, particularly the itinerant ones. The Department will, however, consider applications for public assistance from hawkers who are temporarily incapacitated by illness, provided the applicants can produce the necessary medical certificate. Hawkers who have become unemployed and have surrendered their current hawker's licences to the Hawkers Department will be eligible for public assistance.

2.44 p.m.

"for making Supplementary Provision for the Public Service for the financial year 1st April, 1970, to 31st March, 1971", recommendation of President signified (Mr E. W. Barker); presented for the Minister for Finance by his Parliamentary Secretary (Mr Tang See Chim); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1961 (No. 26 of 1961)", presented by the Minister for Communications (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to make provision for securing the employment of persons who have completed national service and for matters connected therewith", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Defence (Mr Lim Kim San); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

2.47 p.m. Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day].

The First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1970, to 31st March, 1971, contained in Paper Cmd. 17 of 1970. The summary is on page 4 of the Paper. No notice of amendments has been received in respect of the Supplementary Estimates. I propose to take the heads of expenditure* en bloc. Following are the heads of expenditure: Head Title Total 0104 Parliament 290,000 0201 Prime Minister 15,000 0301 Ministry of Science and Technology 22,500 0401 Ministry of Finance 22,500 0501 Ministry of Foreign Affairs 27,500 0601 Ministry of Labour 22,500 0701 Ministry of Education 22,500 0801 Ministry of Communications 22,500 0901 Ministry of the Interior and Defence 25,000 1001 Ministry of Culture 25,000 1101 Ministry of Social Affairs 25,000 1201 Ministry of Law and National Development 25,000 1301 Ministry of Health 25,000 ------- Total to be voted 570,000 =======

Question, "That the sums stated for the heads of expenditure which appear on page 4 of Paper Cmd. 17 of 1970 stand part of the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1970, to 31st March, 1971," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $570,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1970, to 31st March, 1971, contained in Paper Cmd. 17 of 1970," put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution. Resolution reported - "That the sum of $570,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1970, to 31st March, 1971, contained in Paper Cmd. 17 of 1970."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution."

Question put, and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." There is one underlying objective in the recent exercises of increasing Members' allowances and Ministers' salaries and of providing for their pension. That underlying objective is to remove the financial disincentive in getting men of ability and integrity to undertake political life. The proposed increase in Members' allowances and Ministers' salaries is a further step in this direction. The first step was made when the Government passed the Parliamentary Pensions Act in June last year. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister for Finance said, and I quote from Hansard, Vol. 29, No. 1, col. 18: `We cannot expect to get future leaders of calibre on the cheap, whatever was the case in the past, and it is as well that the people of Singapore realize and accept this fact. Unless Singaporeans want to settle in the future for a mediocre crack-pot or corrupt leadership, they must not believe they can continue to expect men of ability in future to suffer severe financial sacrifices in pursuit of a hazardous political career. In my opi nion, a mediocre crack-pot or corrupt political leadership will ruin this country in an incredibly short time, and such ruination could be final, complete and permanent, as Singapore has no natural resources or a large economic base on which to effect a recovery.' The Minister for Finance concluded, and I quote: `And to ensure the continued prosperity and success of Singapore, the cost of the pension is a small price to pay.' The Parliamentary Pensions Act has now been in force for about a year. In this time, it has been found that some of the provisions of the Act are too restrictive and need modification. For instance, the Act provides that to qualify for pension, a Member would have to put in at least ten years' reckonable service and be not less than fifty years of age. This means that a Member would have to serve not less than two full terms of five years each in order to qualify for pension. A Member who serves for two terms, any of which is less than the full term of five years, would therefore not be eligible for a pension unless he is elected for a third term. In Australia, a Member of Parliament can qualify for a pension at the age of forty years, while in New Zealand Members of Parliament are entitled to pensions after nine years' service and on attaining the age of fifty years. In Canada, on the other hand, a pension is paid to a Member of Parliament who serves more than two terms. It is therefore proposed to amend the Act so that a Member who has put in nine years' reckonable service, instead of ten, would qualify for pension. The qualifying age for the grant of pension is also being reduced from fifty years to forty-five years. At present, only a Speaker who is also an elected Member of Parliament may qualify for pension, and it is proposed to amend the Act so that a Speaker who is not an elected Member may also qualify for pension. It is only reasonable that a person who serves in Parliament as Speaker, whether or not he is an elected Member, should be eligible for a pension for the service he puts in. There may also be cases where persons who are Members of Parliament subsequently cease to be Members without having served the minimum period to qualify for pension but who, nevertheless, on ceasing to be Members, may hold public offices such as High Commissioners or Ambassadors for several more years. Such persons should be adequately provided for in their declining years. It is therefore proposed to amend the Act so that a person who has completed less than nine years' reckonable service in Parliament, but the aggregate of whose service in Parliament together with the service in a public office makes up nine years, would qualify for pension under the Act. For this purpose, "public office" is to be defined as the office of High Commissioner or Ambassador or such other office as the President may, from time to time, declare in the Gazette. This Bill, when passed, will be made retrospective to 1st July, 1969, the date when the principal Act came into operation, to enable the provisions of the principal Act and the amending Act to dovetail. 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.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 13, to leave out "eight" and insert "nine". At the First Reading of the Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, eight years was specified as the qualifying period. As I said in moving the Second Reading, one full term of Parliament lasts for five years; two terms would be ten years. On deeper reflection, therefore, we consider that nine years of reckonable service would be more appropriate. Hence the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 21, to leave out "eight" and insert "nine". The same reason as I have mentioned above applies. Amendment agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 - Amendments made: In page 2, line 30, to leave out "eight" and insert "nine". - [Mr Tang See Chim]. In page 2, line 39, to leave out "eight" and insert "nine". - [Mr Tang See Chim]. In page 3, line 22, to leave out "eight" and insert "nine". - [Mr Tang See Chim]. Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.01 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." It has been the tradition in many countries for the Legislature to provide by law for a Civil List for their Presidents. And this tradition is enshrined iii our Constitution, Article 4 of which reads: "The Legislature shall by law provide a Civil List for the President." Part I of this Bill, therefore, seeks to make such provision in accordance with the Constitution. Members will note from the Schedule to the Bill that the President will draw an annual salary of $48,000 which is tax free. In addition, he will get an annual entertainment allowance of $10,000, also tax free. The expenses for maintaining the President's household, together with salaries for his personal staff, come to $474,000 a year. By clause 3 of the Bill, the amount payable under this Schedule is charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund. Opportunity is also taken in the Bill to provide for the President's pension when he retires. At present, there is no statutory provision for the payment of a pension to a former President. All civil servants are given pension rights; in Singapore, all persons in employment have at least the protection of the Central Provident Fund to provide for them and their families in their retiring years; and, since July last year, even politicians who have been M.P.s can have pensions provided certain conditions are met. It is only reasonable therefore that our President, who holds the highest office in the land, should be superannuated for his services on his ceasing to be a President. Part II of the Bill, therefore, provides for the payment of pension or gratuity to "former" Presidents. Clause 8 of the Bill provides that a former President, who has ceased to hold office, shall be granted a pension or gratuity of such amount and under such circumstances as Parliament may determine. No specific period of service as a President is prescribed, and the Bill leaves it to the discretion of Parliament to determine the amount to be paid. This discretion will give flexibility to meet changing circumstances, and Parliament can be relied upon to determine an amount that would allow a former President to maintain a standard of life in keeping with the exalted office he has held. 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. 3.08 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill has a threefold purpose. Members may recall that a Gift Voucher Scheme was introduced in May last year with the object of encouraging newly-weds, national servicemen and others to save in the Postal Savings Bank. It has been found necessary to provide legislative authority in connection with this Scheme and, therefore, a new section 7A is inserted in the Ordinance to empower the Postmaster-General to sell Post Office Savings Bank Gift Vouchers and to accept them as deposits into Post Office Savings Bank accounts. Section 21 is also amended to empower the Minister to prescribe conditions for the sale, issue, refund, etc, of such vouchers. These amendments are to be back-dated to 2nd May, 1969, the date of introduction of the Gift Voucher Scheme. The other purposes of this Bill are to amend sections 9 and 11 (1) which deal with the prescription of interest rates and the investments of Post Office Savings Bank funds respectively. At present, section 9 allows a variation in the interest rates to be paid on savings deposits after giving three months' notice in the Government Gazette. For greater flexibility, this requirement of three months' notice is being deleted. Similarly, section 11(1) is amended to allow flexibility of investments. The amendment confers wider powers upon the Minister to direct investment of Post Office Savings Bank deposits in stocks, funds and securities as he may approve. 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. 3.12 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The main object of this Bill is to enable Singapore to adopt the International Load Line Convention, 1966. The Load Line (i.e. Plimsoll Mark) indicates the maximum depth to which a ship can be loaded. At present, the Load Line Convention, 1930, applies to Singapore, and is implemented by United Kingdom legislation which was extended to Singapore. The new International Convention of 1966, which came into force in July 1968, takes into account modern technological advances in shipbuilding and provides for tankers of over 600 feet in length. The new Convention also provides certain advantages - for example, it allows deeper loading which results in about 4 per cent increase in carrying capacity, and therefore earning capacity, for some tankers. It is necessary for Singapore to accept the 1966 Convention so that Singapore-registered ships can enjoy the benefits of deeper loading, and furthermore ships calling at Singapore are often loaded in accordance with the 1966 Convention. For the purpose of acceptance of the Convention, the Merchant Shipping Ordinance needs to be amended. The existing load line provisions are deleted and new provisions substituted. Members may wish to refer to relevant provisions contained in clause 23 of the Bill which, inter alia: (a) prohibits ships from sailing without Load Line certificates; (b) empowers the Minister to exempt ships under certain circumstances, and to appoint classification societies to issue Load Line certificates; and (c) empowers the Minister to make regulations for the purpose. Another amendment provides for the licensing of all harbour craft operating for trade or business within Singapore territorial waters. At present harbour craft which are registered either in Singapore or elsewhere are exempted from licensing. This means that such craft are not subject to control and can therefore avoid safety and other requirements. There have been instances where condemned craft sold for breaking up as scrap were subsequently registered under foreign flags and being operated as harbour craft. This is clearly undesirable on grounds of safety. The object is achieved by amending section 453 of the Ordinance, vide clause 36 of the Bill. The rest of the provisions in the Bill deal with amendments recommended by the Law Review Commissioners, and are mainly amendments consequential on constitutional changes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.16 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to raise a very small point. As far as I can see, it will require a great number of qualified surveyors of ships to ensure the proper implementation of this Bill. I am just wondering whether the present number of qualified surveyors in Singapore is adequate to cope with this work.

The Member for Jalan Kayu has raised a fair point. That is why we have made provision to accept certificates issued by classification societies which are well known throughout the world. It will not be necessary for our surveyors to survey the ships. They need only accept the certificates and classify them as being adequate for our purpose. We have a few surveyors in service who will be able to handle the rest.

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. 3.21 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." National service was first introduced in Singapore in 1967 and administered under the National Service Ordinance, 1952, which is in turn based on the Federation of Malaysia Ordinance 37 of 1952. Since then, new demands and recent changes in the policy, administration and management of national service in Singapore have rendered it necessary to introduce new legislation on the subject. The said National Service Ordinance, 1952, has been found to be inadequate to meet such changed conditions. Accordingly, a new Enlistment Bill has been drafted. Under the Enlistment Bill any citizen or a permanent resident of Singapore between the ages of 18 and 40 residing within or without the Republic is liable to be enlisted for national service, in the case of officers and persons who possess special skills required by the armed forces, the maximum age for national service liability is 50. However, this does not necessarily mean that all persons in such age group will actually be called up. With the rapid expansion in the technical services of the Singapore Armed Forces, highly trained and qualified personnel will have to be made available to cater for the maintenance and running of highly sophisticated equipment and weaponry which the Singapore Armed Forces are acquiring over the next few years. The provision of the Bill has extended the age limit for service from 40 years to 50 years in order to make available to the Singapore Armed Forces persons who have had specialised training and extensive experience which may normally not be available from ordinary manpower resources. Some of the special skills we have in mind are: (1) Electronic engineering, (2) Electrical engineering, (3) Telecommunication engineering, (4) Mechanical engineering, (5) Marine engineering, (6) Aeronautical engineering, (7) Naval architecture, and (8) Automobile engineering. National service under the Bill consists of any one of three types of service: (a) full-time service for a period of two years or, in the case of officers or persons selected for officer training, for a period of three years; (b) reserve service, which means either service on a part-time basis consisting of -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of this Bill is to provide various measures for enlistment of persons who include: (i) all those persons who, on reaching the age of 1 6½ years, should go for national service registration and medical check-up; and (ii) all those persons in the age group between 18 years and 40 years who are citizens and who are required to enlist for national service. The Bill also provides for full-time national service, reserve service, and mobilised service in cases of emergency. All these are explained in great detail in the Bill. Sir, although our national service scheme has been implemented for only a few years, the facts have shown that we have achieved 100 per cent success. All parents understand the Government's policy of building up our national defence because they realise that, as an independent newly emergent country, we should have our own defence capability. Therefore, they encourage their children to take up national service in order to receive military training and to shoulder the sacred task of defending their country. Our young men have also shown their courage, resolution and loyalty in national defence. I believe that, for the sake of our national defence, independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, all loyal citizens will not oppose national service and will not object to its importance to our country. They will agree with the principle of national service. On the other hand, we must also recognise that since the implementation of the national service scheme, we have been experiencing a shortage of labour or skills in certain fields. In this respect, I would like the Minister to clarify the Government's policy of opening the door wider to non-citizens to apply for work permits. The questions are: (1) Whether the implementation of this Bill will create a labour shortage in our labour market. If so, has the Minister any remedial measures? (2) What is the Government's policy in relation to applications by students in colleges and universities for delayed or postponed national service? Has the Government any better arrangement whereby there can be a balance between military training and the education of the boys so that there will be no shortage of personnel for nation building, and no undesirable consequences in this respect? (3) The Bill contains certain provisions regarding the employment of national servicemen. These are all very good. But if certain employers disregard or infringe these provisions, what measures will the Government take to deal with them? (4) The Government has announced that it will give priority of employment opportunities to national service personnel. This is a very reasonable measure and it has been announced many times. But I have recently received complaints from people who have undergone two years' full-time national service. Their complaint is that they have not been able to get any jobs even after two or three months of their release from national service. I hope the Minister can investigate into this matter and try to remedy it. However, national service is the bounden duty of every citizen. If we want our country to survive, we must ensure that we have stability and progress. I fully support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure that in his heart of hearts the Member for Sembawang welcomes national service. I shall try to clear up his doubts. I have mentioned in this House before that there is no question of a labour shortage being caused when we conscript the 18-year olds. What I said was that there would be a temporary labour shortage while these people are in national service. There would be a delay of two years before they come out into the labour market. Moreover, the present labour shortage is not so much a shortage of unskilled labour. When a boy or a girl of 18 years leaves school, he or she is considered as unskilled labour. The present shortage is greater in respect of skilled labour than unskilled labour. So I would say that enlistment or conscription of our 18-year olds will not cause a labour shortage. It is actually a delay in supplying labour. Conscription first began in 1967. And in 1969 some of the national servicemen were released, and quite a large number of them have been placed in employment. This brings me to the complaint voiced by the Member for Sembawang -that those who have been discharged from the armed forces after a service of two or three years, as the case may be, have found themselves without jobs for three months or so. We will try to place all discharged personnel in employment as quickly as possible, but this takes time. In our short experience of national service, we have found that we have had no difficulty in placing a discharged national serviceman in employment if he is not very particular. Some of them are really choosey as they feel that they deserve more than what they are offered. But I think that less than five per cent are still unplaced after three months of their discharge. In most cases, if a national serviceman has a realistic assessment of his capabilities, a job will be found for him. As regards the problem of either conscripting the 18-year olds or allowing them to continue with their education, we have considered that very carefully and have devised a scheme. I would like to inform the House that last year, of those who have the full Higher School Certificate, we have given deferment from national service to 855, and have allowed them to proceed to higher institutions of learning. As for the rest of those who have obtained the full H.S.C., about 572 have not been called up, and we expect to call them up by June. There is a discussion going on at present between my officers and those from the institutions of higher learning, particularly Nanyang University and the University of Singapore, to make arrangements for conscripts with full H.S.C, qualifications to do a year's course of study if they are chosen as officers. With this arrangement, the completion of three years' service in the Army would be taken as equivalent to the first year in the university, so that after their discharge as officers of the armed forces, they could join the university at the second-year level. There are a lot of details to be worked out, but I can assure Members that both parties, i.e., officials from the universities and my officers, are trying their very best to work out a solution for those who are conscripted and fit enough to be officers in the Singapore Armed Forces to save a year in the higher institutions of learning after they are discharged from national service. Another question raised by the Member for Sembawang concerns the employment of national servicemen. He asked me whether we can take action against employers who infringe the provisions of the Bill. I think I have already mentioned that any person who fails to comply with any of the provisions under this Bill shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine not exceeding $5,000, or to both such fine and imprisonment. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have fully replied to all the queries raised.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has omitted to answer one of my questions. What is the Government's policy with regard to non-citizens?

Sir, the Enlistment Bill gives no option to a permanent resident, who is a non-citizen of Singapore, not to serve. Under this Bill, a permanent resident in Singapore is liable to be called up. However, there is no provision for a person who is a non-citizen and a non-resident of Singapore to serve in our armed forces at all.

(In Mandarin): Sir, does the Minister mean that as long as a person is a permanent resident of Singapore, even though he is not a citizen, he is liable to be called up under this Bill?

Order.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of the Second-hand Dealers (Amendment) Bill is to empower the Police to enter and search the premises of unlicensed second-hand dealers. The Ministry of Social Affairs is the administrative authority for the Second-hand Dealers Ordinance, whilst the Police are responsible for licensing and control of such dealers. The Ordinance now only empowers the Police to enter and search without warrant the premises of licensed second-hand dealer shops when they have reason to suspect that stolen or lost property is kept therein. The Police have no such power, however, in respect of premises where second-hand goods are sold without a licence. To justify their entry into such unlicensed premises, the Police have to rely on the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The procedure is cumbersome in that the Police must obtain, in the first instance, a search warrant from a Magistrate's Court. If there is insufficient time to apply for a search warrant, a list of the articles stolen or missing must be taken down in writing with a declaration stating that a robbery or theft has been committed and, moreover, the person who lost the goods or his representative must accompany the police officer in the search. Powers of summary search are limited to certain special circumstances, for example, where the premises to be searched are used by any person who has been convicted of receiving stolen property or harbouring thieves. Sir, it is therefore proposed to amend the Second-hand Dealers Ordinance in order to give the Police power to enter and search without warrant any shop where there is reason to suspect that any person is dealing in second-hand goods without a licence and to seize such goods found therein. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a simple piece of social legislation necessitated by the inconsiderate behaviour of some smokers in public places, such as cinemas and theatres. I think Members will agree that it is a matter of survival for ourselves that our society should be a closely knitted one with special emphasis on the strict exercise of social discipline by its members. Such a pattern of life makes it imperative for every member of society to value the comfort and convenience of his fellow citizens as much as his own, and that he should completely and voluntarily refrain from acts that make life miserable for others. In matters such as smoking in public, the ideal solution is for the smoker to exercise self-discipline and to see to it that his smoking does not cause any discomfort to persons around him. However, this has not always been the case. Only after traditional forms of public exhortation have failed to produce the desired effect is the law being invoked to give a helping hand, in fact, the Ministry of Health has given attention to the problem of smoking in cinemas and theatres since 1966. The voluntary ban on smoking in certain cinemas which started in 1967 has not been very fruitful in that, in practice, the patrons of the cinemas concerned have simply and invariably ignored the management's request to refrain from smoking. It must be pointed out that smoking under crowded conditions within enclosed spaces or in air-conditioned rooms causes a nuisance and irritation to the other occupants, especially the non-smokers. Members of this House must have had the unpleasant experience of leaving the cinema or the theaters after the day's last show with their clothing and even the articles inside their pockets reeking of nothing but tobacco smoke. Further, the smoke screen in the auditorium not only interferes with proper viewing, but also makes the eyes smart. This Bill, however, by prohibiting smoking in cinemas and theatres, and certain other places that may be specified by the Minister, is designed to remove this source of nuisance and irritation, thereby enhancing the pleasure and comfort of the patrons of the cinemas and theatres as a whole. The Bill seeks to prohibit smoking in the auditorium of any cinema or theatre and in any specified building at any time during which these are open to the public. The expressions "cinema", "theatre" and "specified building" have been carefully defined. The prohibition on smoking is confined only to the auditorium of cinemas and theatres to which members of the public are admitted upon payment of admission fees, and only during the periods when these are open to the public. The premises of clubs, associations and the like have been expressly excluded from this prohibition. In order to obviate the need for an amending Act at a future date, the Minister is empowered, under clause 3, to specify in the Gazette any particular building or class of buildings or part thereof to which members of the public have access as being a place or places in which smoking shall not be permitted either permanently or for such period or periods as he may deem fit. The penalty for smoking in prohibited places is a fine not exceeding $500 and enforcement action will be by means of ticketing. This device has been found to be very suitable, effective and expeditious in dealing with persons caught littering in public places under section 26 of the Environmental Public Health Act, 1968. The main task of enforcing the prohibition will fall on the public health auxiliaries attached to the Public Health Division and police officers. Managers of cinemas, theatres and other specified buildings are required to display notices in four languages in conspicuous positions stating that smoking has been prohibited and the penalty provided therefor. Responsibility has also been placed on managers and certain authorised employees of these places to request any persons smoking therein to cease smoking forthwith, and if such persons fail to comply with their request, to require them to leave the place forthwith without entitlement to refund of ticket money. Should the management encounter any difficulty, they may seek the assistance of any police officer or a public health auxiliary. Provisions have also been included for the punishment of any person who abuses, hinders or assaults the manager or any authorised employee. The other clauses are explained in greater detail in the Explanatory Note accompanying the Bill, and I do not wish to take up the time of this House to repeat them. All I need stress is that the success of this measure depends very much on the support and co-operation the public give to the Government. The law cannot be everywhere. There is nothing more effective than the reproachful eye of the public to prevent a smoker from causing nuisance to his fellow citizens. With the law spelt out clearly on their side, the non-smoking public can now stand up to assert their right to more comfortable conditions in cinemas, theatres and other specified places. I have no doubt that this Bill will have the support of Members of this House and it is for the greater good of all the patrons of cinemas and theatres, while it will not cause any hardship to any person, not even to the smokers themselves. I expect that after a while they will acquire the good habit of looking for convenient places when the urge to smoke comes, places such as the toilets or lobbies where they can smoke to their hearts' content without causing any public discomfort. I wish further to assure Members that enforcement action will only be taken after an educational campaign which will be conducted later this year, and that this law will be applied with the utmost discretion and consideration. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.58 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a smoker and I enjoy smoking.

Against the doctor's advice!

Sir, any Bill that is introduced should be a Bill that is enforceable, and strictly enforceable. For the last few years, we have seen notices in cinema halls quite prominently displayed requesting patrons not to smoke. They have been abused and I am afraid they will continue to be abused. We see in the theatres persons smoking. There are portions in the buses -public transport - where smoking is allowed and a front portion where smoking is not allowed. Yet any bus traveller will tell you that this regulation is not at all enforced. Taxi-drivers, Sir, are, I think, under the Ordinance not allowed to smoke. You need only stand on the road and you can see taxi-drivers smoking happily. Just a few days ago, I read a reply from the Registrar of Vehicles that on inspection every six months, the Registry sees to it that taxis contain an ashtray. Sir, I travel in a taxi almost every day and I have yet to come across a taxi with, an ashtray in the front seat, or the back seat for that matter. I sometimes go to the theatre and I notice that people who are smokers start to smoke as soon as they see advertisements of cigarettes on the screen. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Sir, during the last Budget debate, I made a point about doing away with these advertisements, but the Minister for Health did not give me an answer. The melodious jingles on cigarettes put on TV and over the radio are repeated by children and they sound better than the pop songs that we hear of. Sir, what should I do, as a smoker, when I go to a theatre and see an advertisement, "Smoke Kingsize Cigarettes", and, at the same time, another notice by the side telling me not to smoke? Who is going to enforce the law of no-smoking in cinemas? The managers, assistant managers and ushers? Sir, in every cinema there are only two or three ushers and they cannot be looking out for people who smoke. Furthermore, this is not a law which can be easily enforceable. I agree with the Minister that, as a follow-up to this Bill, there should be a campaign like the "Anti-litter Campaign" that we had recently. I wish the Minister luck and I hope this law can be enforceable. But I have my misgivings. Clause 3 of the Bill, which the Minister spoke about, is, I think, rather loose and gives the Minister far too much powers. It says: `The Minister may, by notification in the Gazette and subject to such conditions as he may think fit, specify any building or part thereof or class of buildings or parts thereof to which members of the public have access as being a place or places in which smoking shall not be permitted either permanently or for such period or periods as he may think fit.' Sir, I know that the Minister for Health is a non-smoker. One day he may decide to prohibit smoking in the Ministry of Health. I think this law may not be workable if it applies only to theatres. I was just wondering whether stricter measures cannot be taken to prohibit smoking in buses and taxis also. And the precondition is that we have to ban advertisements of cigarettes on T.V., cinemas and over the radio, which, I believe, is more important than this legislation. 4.05 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill seeks to prohibit smoking in certain places which include cinemas. Undoubtedly this measure will cause some inconvenience to smokers in certain places at certain times. Possibly these people may include some Members of the House who have taken to smoking. But to those members of the public who are non-smokers, this Bill brings good tidings. As a non- smoker, I welcome the introduction of this Bill. Sir, speaking dispassionately, smoking is a bad habit. Medical practitioners have made researches into smoking and have found that it is harmful and will cause cancer of the lungs. They therefore advise people that if they value their lives at all, they should not smoke. From the economic point of view, smoking is a waste of money because money is literally going up in smoke. Of course, to people who have money, the amount that they spend on smoking is negligible. But to a person whose monthly income is $100 to $200, the necessity to satisfy his urge to smoke by spending a dollar or two a day will bring considerable hardship to his family. In spite of the harm in smoking, the number of smokers is not decreasing. That is because one man's poison is another man's food. Sir, the Bill before us today is not to enforce a complete ban on smoking. It seeks to ban smoking only in certain places. As a matter of fact, nobody at the present juncture expects the Government to introduce a Bill to ban smoking totally, because doing so will be unwise. That would mean a loss of revenue in terms of hundreds of thousands of dollars. But, in any case, it is my view that in order to bring up a healthy second generation, we have the responsibility of educating our younger generation, particularly children in the schools, to cultivate good habits, which include the habit of not smoking. I do not know whether the Minister for Health agrees with this point of view. No doubt we are an open and free society and everybody has the freedom to indulge his propensity for smoking. But this freedom is limited to the extent that it should not interfere with the comfort of others. Therefore, in public places like cinemas or public buses, we should respect the feelings of those around us. We must not do things which will cause them any discomfort or inconvenience. For example, in the cinema, if you are concentrating on the screen and enjoying the show and the people around you happen to be smokers who have no regard for your feelings or your comfort, then you will be literally smoked in! These people will continue to smoke, and because they smoke, they may cough and spit. This will nauseate you. This kind of public behaviour will really adversely affect the feelings and comfort of others around them. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are some cinemas which screen notices requesting the audience not to smoke. But people who are smokers continue to smoke, and because there is no enforcement of these notices, they are simply ignored. I believe this Bill will bring better results and make our public places, like the cinemas, better, healthier and cleaner places for those members of the public who wish to enjoy the facilities provided. I must however admit that it takes time to cultivate a good habit. On this basis, I express the hope that in the earlier stages of the implementation of this Bill, the punishment meted out to offenders should not be too severe. A warning should be given to the first offender. We should enforce the law with some humane considerations. I believe that only in this way can we achieve better results. Sir, in order to ensure the smooth implementation of this Bill, I wish to suggest that, firstly, a publicity campaign should be carried out in the newspapers, over the Radio and Rediffusion and on T.V. to make the people understand the intentions of the Bill and to help them obey the law. Secondly, in places where smoking is banned, such as cinemas or buses, notices should be displayed in the four official languages so that members of the public are made to realise that the ban is on and that no offence should be committed out of ignorance. I hope the Minister will give due consideration to my proposals. Sir, generally speaking, it is my view that the Bill has the same good intentions as the "Keep Singapore Clean Campaign", that is, to inculcate in our people good social habits and discipline. I believe this Bill will receive wide support from the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Bill to prohibit smoking in cinemas or theatres. I only regret that the Minister did not include the prohibition of smoking in public buses and taxis. I sincerely hope that at the next sitting, if possible, the Minister will move an amendment to include the prohibition of smoking in buses and taxis so that there will be no nuisance to the passengers. 4.12 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise merely to underline the points that have been brought up, especially by the Member for Telok Blangah. One of his points regarding the necessity to prohibit smoking in buses too has again been emphasised. But I wish to say how fortuitous it is and what a happy coincidence that the Acting Minister for Health is also the Minister for Culture! That being the case, perhaps notice can be taken of the necessity to encourage theatre managers to remove cigarette advertisements from the screen. In order to do that, I think the Ministry of Culture should set the example by removing these advertisements from T.V, and over the radio. Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank Members for their enthusiastic support for this Bill and I am quite sure that the Ministry of Health will be able to carry out all the suggestions put forward by them. I only need to reply in brief to several points made by Members. In the first place, the Member for Telok Blangah has complained about the lack of ashtrays in taxis and buses. As a smoker - he has admitted this - he finds the lack of this facility very inconvenient. But I do not think he need worry about the enforcement of this Bill. Judging from the speech he has made just now condemning the irresponsible behaviour of smokers, I do not think he will want to run the risk of being caught smoking in an auditorium! The complaint about the lack of ashtrays in taxis and buses has to be referred to the Registrar of Vehicles. I am sure he will look into this matter more closely. Smoking in buses is very undesirable. The public, especially the non-smoking public, should play their part more effectively. I do not think we should leave everything to the law. The public should be asked to play an effective role in maintaining good social order. If the provisions in this Bill are found to be inadequate, I am sure the Ministry of Health will put forward further amendments to strengthen them. As regards advertisements of cigarettes in public, especially on television and over the radio, I agree that it is morally unjustifiable for these two media to advertise them when the Government is prohibiting smoking in cinemas and theatres. However, I must say that most of the contracts to advertise cigarettes on TV, and over the radio were accepted some time ago, and most of them run for a period of at least twelve months. It is now our policy not to accept contracts for advertisements of cigarettes which will expire later than the end of this year. It is fair at the present moment to allow these contracts to run their natural course. It is not considered necessary to terminate them immediately. As for advertising smoking in public, the Government will probably put forward certain amendments to this House to prohibit all forms of advertisements of cigarettes as from 1st January, 1971. This is to prohibit the advertisement of cigarettes in all media - newspapers, magazines, T.V, and Radio, and billboards and so on. Members will thus have no cause for complaint. I do agree with the sentiments expressed by the Member for Sembawang, and his strong condemnation of smoking in public. However, I think we should have a certain degree of freedom in this country. Although we can prohibit smoking in cinemas, theatres and certain specific places, it is not desirable to prohibit it altogether. Otherwise, we would make the lives of smokers very miserable. I do not think we should do that.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have to clarify one point.

The Minister has replied and I am afraid you cannot say anything more.

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

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