Hansard, 1972-11-03

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 may be appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar), Prime Minister - on 3rd November, 1972. Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol) - from 7th to 28th November, 1972. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order. I have to inform Honourable Members that I communicated to the President the Address agreed to by resolution of this Parliament on the 26th October, 1972. I have received a reply from the President acknowledging receipt of the kind message of Parliament transmitted to him.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development (a) if he will cause pedestrian lights to be installed at Bendemeer Road in front of Block 25 so as to allow crossing to be made at this popular and convenient point of the road with some degree of safety; and (b) if he will ask the Police to take the severest action against inconsiderate motorists who exceed the speed limit along Bendemeer Road.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the light controlled pedestrian crossing was recently put into operation at Bendemeer Road in front of Block 43. The automatic stopping of traffic at this crossing for 25 seconds in every 90 seconds provides sufficient gaps in the traffic flow to enable pedestrians to cross Bendemeer Road between Blocks 43 and 25. There is also a light controlled pedestrian crossing at the junction of Bendemeer Road and Boon Keng Road, a distance of about 500 feet from Block 25. The installation of pedestrian lights in front of Block 25 is, therefore, not considered necessary. The Police have taken action against vehicles exceeding the 30 m.p.h. speed limit along Bendemeer Road. For example, for the week 9th to 15th September, 1972, 27 drivers were booked for speeding along the road and offered composition ranging from $30 to $50 depending on their speed. The Police will continue their operations against inconsiderate motorists. Those racing at excessive speeds will be arrested on the spot and charged in court under the Road Traffic Act for dangerous driving, or under the Penal Code for endangering the lives of other road users. The Member for Kallang will be interested to know that in the first nine months of this year, the Police took action against some 14,000 motorists for exceeding speed limits along our roads.

Sir, can traffic be stopped at this crossing for more than 25 seconds at a time to enable the aged and children to cross the road?

Twenty-five seconds out of every 90 seconds, Sir, is in my view already quite a considerable gap for pedestrians to cross. To stop traffic longer might lead to traffic hold-ups.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will request the Housing and Development Board to construct vending stalls to be let out to the aged, handicapped and other categories of persons suffering from one form of disability or another to carry out petty hawking within their housing estates.

Sir, the Housing and Development Board has tried out a scheme in one Housing Board estate to provide sweet-vending stalls on the ground floors of a few blocks of flats for aged persons to do petty hawking. However, there have been many complaints of noise nuisance and littering and problems of pedestrian obstruction and quarrels between the stallholders and the residents of ground floor flats. As the scheme was not successful, it was therefore decided not to extend the scheme to other Housing Board estates.

2.34 p.m.

On 24th October, 1972, my colleague, the Minister for Health, announced that, among measures being taken to encourage small families, would be one reducing from five to three the number of children for which income tax reliefs will in future be allowed. The existing allowances for children, i.e, the amounts which may be deducted from income to be taxed, are as follows: - For the 1st child, $750 For the 2nd child, $500 For the 3rd child, $500 For the 4th child, $300 For the 5th child, $300 The changes in reliefs which will take effect from the year of assessment 1974 will be as follows: - For the 1st child, $750, as at present. For the 2nd child, $750, increased by $250 from the present $500. For the 3rd child, $500, as at present. There will be no allowances for subsequent children. The deductions are in line with the Government policy of encouraging two but discouraging more than three children in the family. The new reliefs will apply to parents who have three children or less on 1st August, 1973. Any fourth or subsequent child born to such parents after 1st August, 1973, will therefore not get any relief. However, parents who already have more than three children on 1st August, 1973, will continue to be eligible for their present allowances for these children. It is not the intention to cause hardship to those who already have more than three children in the family and cannot do anything about it. There will be an additional variation. The Act provides that, at present, a married woman who has earned income may opt to be assessed separately from her husband. This provision has given a more advantageous tax treatment to married women who are working. The option will remain so that all married women who are economically inactive will be encouraged to work and ease the manpower shortage in Singapore. To further induce the more highly qualified and professionally trained married women to work, I have decided also to make the tax reliefs for children more attractive for them. In the case of such highly qualified married women who have three children or less on 1st August, 1973, and who elect to claim the tax reliefs for their children in their assessment, there will be enhanced reliefs as follows: - For the 1 child $750 or 5 per cent of the earned annual income subject to a maximum of $2,000. For the 2nd child $750 or 5 per cent of the earned annual income subject to a maximum of $2,000. For the 3rd child $500 or 3 per cent of the earned annual income subject to a maximum of $2,000. It is hoped the enhanced reliefs will serve to reverse any tendency for highly qualified and professional married women to give up their careers to look after their children. Since these women have undergone expensive training, it would be a waste of such training if they stop working.

I have two questions to ask the Minister, Sir. First, how does the Minister propose to defind a married woman who is highly qualified and one who is not? Secondly, on the question of tax reliefs, will those people, who now have four children but are not eligible for income tax at the moment, get tax reliefs for these four children later when they become eligible for payment of income tax?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has given increases in tax reliefs for children. May I ask him what about reliefs for dependants? There are many dependants in a family, such as the father and mother. Therefore, can he give any relief for these dependants, so that the wage earners might get some allowance?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may take the first speaker. He has asked about the definition of "specially qualified persons". The definition will be given in the amendment to the Act, which will have to be drafted. It is intended to define it as a married woman who has obtained a degree from an institution providing tertiary education, or who is a member of a professional body oz group regulated by statute, or any other profession as may be approved by the Minister and notified in the Gazette. On the second question, as regards children who at present are not yet given tax reliefs because there is no claim yet for income tax from the parent, the intention is that the present position will remain for those who, as I have said, already have more than three children and are not able to do anything about it. On the other question, which has been posed by the Member for Anson, I am afraid that my present amendment of the Act does not cover the question of relatives.

Mr Speaker, Sir, would a teacher be considered as a person with specialised professional training as such, and be entitled to reliefs just now propounded by the Minister?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Finance what is the logic of discriminating the professionally qualified from those who are not professionally qualified, when the question of encouragement for greater participation in the economy of the country does not lie only in getting more pro fessionally qualified women involved. The shortage of manpower today falls within all categories - from the highly-trained workers to the less skilled workers. Recently, there was an attempt to encourage married women to work in the factories and so on, where there is a serious shortage of such manpower. Therefore, I would like to know what is the logic behind the rationalisation of granting these reliefs only to women who are classified as professionally qualified.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question whether teachers are to be considered as professionally trained persons, it does not come within the definition which is being proposed. But there is no reason why consideration cannot be given if it is intended that this definition would apply to them. However, I think that within the reliefs granted, it is unlikely that most of the teachers would qualify for more than the $750. On the logic of differentiating the professionally qualified from those not so qualified, again I think the same arithmetic applies in both cases. And the further logic is that, as I have mentioned in my statement, these professionally qualified married women have been trained at very great expense, and it would be an economic waste if we do not make use of this kind of training.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully agree with the Minister that professionally qualified women who have undergone a considerable amount of training should be encouraged to come forward, as it would be a waste not to use their talent and ability. Such measures are desirable and I accept and support them. However, my point is this: why should the same encouragement not be given also to the others? There is also a shortage of manpower in the other categories of workers. The move should be to encourage our women-folk to come out of their households to participate in our economic development.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree very much with that sentiment. But I think the logic of arithmetic applies here. The fact is that unless they are in the $15,000 per annum bracket, they would not qualify for additional reliefs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, arithmetic is something that is worked out, and it can be changed if the Government so decides. But what I am asking is this: has not some thought been given to this point that arithmetic can be changed? An attempt is made to give tax reliefs to the professionally qualified women. It is an indication that the Government is conscious of wanting to draw out this particular category of workers. What I am saying is, why is the same consideration not given to the other categories of women workers? There could be some other method by which the same purpose of drawing more women to participate in our economic development could be achieved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I have very much to add to what has been said. The fact that any married woman who is earning income can apply for a separate assessment of her income is already an inducement to her to go to work. So there is already an incentive. If there are any other ideas of further incentives which the Member may have, I would be very grateful if he would pass them on to the Treasury for consideration.

2.47 p.m.

"to amend the Constitution of Singapore", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to dispense with the revision in 1972 of the registers of electors for the electoral divisions of the Republic of Singapore for purposes of elections under the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 50 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr E. W. Barker; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Pensions Act (Chapter 55 of the Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Mr Hon Sui Sen); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the ,next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

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." Sir, in the methodology of the destruction of a nation by its foes, war by force of arms is not necessarily the only means employed. The independence of a nation may, by more subtle means, be subverted. Although more time-consuming, propaganda, especially from within, could work just as well. The gradual erosion of the mind of a nation may well be achieved by persuasive arguments stemming from vested interests, often foreign. Again, an even more subtle method, that of manipulating political parties within a country, may be employed. This is especially attractive in a country like Singapore. In such circumstances, we can never be over-cautious in safeguarding our integrity as an independent sovereign nation. It is possible with unlimited funds at one's command to gain control of political parties, succeed at the polls and thereafter bring about the surrender or transfer of the sovereignty of our Island-Republic by fusion with another country. Singapore, with its industrious and skilled population, its vast financial resources and expertise, its high standard of living and social amenities, its superb port facilities and economic infrastructure and its know-how and the skilled services in almost every field that it can provide from banking to the ship-repairing business, would indeed be a worth-while plum. Foreign interests with vast resources might find it advantageous to advocate, with smooth blandishments and in euphemistic terms, a "merger" when such merger would in reality be a take-over. These foreign interests could attempt to persuade Singaporeans that a surrender of its sovereignty might be advantageous to Singapore. This could be done by infiltrating into political and other bodies, by pumping in funds into these bodies for nefarious purposes and by the use of modern mass media, so that in time the climate of public opinion may be moulded. The seductive blandishments of foreign agents must not be allowed to succeed. It must be made impossible for outside inimical interests to jostle Singapore into incorporation with any country when it is not to Singapore's benefit. We must accordingly seek to ensure that any Government of the future seeking to merge with a foreign country, .may only do so with the sanction of a clear and undoubted majority of the people of Singapore. As the President said in his address at the opening of Parliament, "No foreign interests can be allowed to take over Singapore through financing and manipulating political parties through their naive or vain, self-proclaimed leaders". Hence, there is, Mr Speaker, Sir, the need for legislation to combat machinations by foreign interests to the detriment of the Republic. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution (Amendment) (Protection of the Sovereignty of the Republic of Singapore) Bill provides at Article 52J that there is to be no surrender or transfer, either wholly or in part, of the sovereignty of the Republic of Singapore as an independent nation whether by merger or incorporation with any other sovereign state, Federation or country or in any other manner whatsoever without the support at a national referendum of at least two-thirds of the total number of votes cast by the electors registered under the Parliamentary Elections Act. Nor indeed without such support of the electorate is there to be any relinquishment of control over the Singapore Police Force or the Singapore Armed Forces. The expression "Singapore Police Force" in this context means not only the Police Force itself but also the Special Constabulary, all Auxiliary Police Forces in Singapore, the Vigilante Corps and any other force declared by the President by notification in the Gazette, to be a police force; the term "Singapore Armed Forces" means the armed forces of the Republic raised and maintained under the Singapore Armed Forces Act, 1972, as well as any civil defence force and any other force declared by the President, by notification in the Gazette, to be an armed force. Members will observe that this Bill does not totally prohibit merger or incorporation with any other country. There may be situations where merger may be desirable but, if so, each and every elector must give thought to it and vote on it at a national referendum and only if at least two-thirds of the total number of electors casting their votes say "Yes" can such a merger or relinquishment of our police and armed forces take place. Lest Article 521 gives the impression to some that Singapore is to live in an isolationist citadel, Article 52K makes it abundantly clear that without derogating from the force and effect of Article 52J nothing in that Article shall be construed as precluding Singapore or any body or organisation in Singapore from participating or co-operating in, or contributing towards, any scheme, venture, project, enterprise or undertaking of whatsoever nature, in conjunction or in concert with any other sovereign state or country or any body or organisation in that sovereign state or country so long as such scheme, venture or project confers, has the effect of conferring or is intended to confer on Singapore or any body or organisation in Singapore, any economic, financial, industrial, social, cultural, educational or other benefit or is, or appears to be advantageous in any way to Singapore or any body or organisation in Singapore. Nor is Singapore prevented from entering into any treaty, agreement, contract, pact or other arrangement with any other sovereign state or country where such treaty, agreement, contract or pact provides for mutual or collective security or any other object or purpose beneficial to Singapore. With regard to Article 52L, I must point out that provisions of the nature contained in the Bill are of no avail if they can be simply repealed by another Act of Parliament. It is, therefore, necessary to entrench this new Part JIB as set out in the Bill and give the provisions therein a degree of permanency in the Statute Books beyond that of ordinary legislation. The manner of entrenchment is by prohibiting any alteration to Part IIB of the Constitution unless the Bill making any amendment (including addition or repeal) has been supported, at a national referendum, by not less than two-thirds of the total number of votes cast by the electors. Only then may the Bill be passed by Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, the need for a Bill such as this cannot be denied. Unless we take steps now to preserve all that we have won by our sweat and toil, we may wake up one day to see it all gone. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.01 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of the Constitution (Amendment) (Protection of the Sovereignty of the Republic of Singapore) Bill is in keeping with the policy speech made by the President in this House. It is an important step forward. That the Government is able to introduce this Bill speedily in this House proves that the Government is attaching great importance to it as it involves the protection of our rights and the rights of our future generations to survive. It is also meant to preserve our sovereignty and independence. Sir, our country is a small island with limited space and a very short history. Our geographical position is at the centre of Southeast Asia and is most strategically situated. Therefore, our position has very often roused the attention and interest of world powers. Because of our great achievements and all round development together with the raising of the living standards of our people in recent years, many elements with ulterior motives and insidious intentions have been trying to resort to various means to destroy our existence and sovereignty. Therefore, this amendment Bill is very necessary. The introduction of the Bill is mainly for the purpose of providing that if there is any proposal to amend our Constitution affecting our sovereignty, then such proposal should be supported by at least two-thirds of our electorate at a national referendum before it can be passed or effected in this way, the intrigues and ulterior motives of foreign elements and ambitious people may be thwarted. Sir, in addition to the express provisions in the Constitution, I feel that there is another important measure that we should adopt. We should actively and effectively inculcate in the minds of our people a sense of national consciousness and patriotism. Provided our people have this high sense of national consciousness and patriotism, I believe all the nefarious designs of ambitious elements and people with ulterior motives will fail disastrously. Sir, I support this amendment Bill. 3.06 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is most appropriate to introduce this amendment Bill at present when we have just begun the First Session of the Third Parliament. The First Parliament had the main tasks and responsibility of consolidating and strengthening our political stability, economic expansion and a defence capability, because from these efforts the independence of our country is ensured and our sovereignty preserved. Basically, it was a struggle for survival. The Second Parliament had the main responsibility of solving the various problems of defence and economy brought about by the withdrawal of the British Armed Forces. In the last few years, not only have we solved all these problems, but we have also managed to achieve a great deal in all fields. Our economic growth rate has been maintained at above 10 per cent. The value of industrial production has been increasing continuously. Urban renewal is progressing very well and the environment of our city is becoming prettier and cleaner day by day. All in all, our efforts in industrialisation and modernisation have been extremely successful. However, all these prosperous signs have inevitably created jealousy and a feeling of insecurity on the part of some outside ambitious people. They are jealous of and perturbed by our achievements because our rapid rate of development brings out their deficiency and at the same time it reflects their slow rate of growth, which will make their own people disenchanted with them. As a result of this jealousy and feeling of insecurity, some people attempt through various means to manipulate some of our political parties, perhaps with the intention of taking over the sovereignty of our country. They think that with their vast financial resources they can achieve this through their local agents and so manipulate our political power, and then perhaps eventually completely usurp our sovereignty through some changes in the Constitution. This is very dangerous. We must expose and check these attempts. The purpose of the introduction of this amendment Bill is to put a stop to all these wild dreams. At the same time, opportunity is taken to remedy some of the existing loopholes in our Constitution. According to Article 90 (1) of the Constitution, constitutional amendments may be legislated by Parliament. In Article 41 (1) a simple majority of those present in the House is all that is necessary to pass any legislation. This is a loophole in our present Constitution, because any political party may make use of its majority in Parliament to amend the Constitution according to its wishes. If every political party adopts the way PAP is working, i.e, to examine any proposed legislation in detail and with great care before introducing it, then there will be no danger of the Constitution being desecrated. But all these preventive measures are still necessary. As the President has pointed out in his speech: `it would be criminal negligence to allow foreign interests with large financial resources to manipulate our internal politics, by financing Singapore political parties, professional, academic and other groups to try to beguile domestic opinion . . . No foreign interests can be allowed to take over Singapore through financing and manipulating political parties through their naive or vain, self-proclaimed leaders.' This amendment Bill provides that unless a two-thirds majority is obtained at a referendum, no part of our sovereignty may be surrendered or transferred through merger or otherwise with any other country. It also provides that unless a two-thirds majority in a referendum is obtained, any proposed amendment to this Part of the Bill cannot be effected. Sir, there are many examples in history to show that these provisions are essential. The British constitution is the result of several hundred years of constitutional struggle. Parliament is the highest authority in the country. There, the traditions, customs and practices are held in great respect and are not amended very frequently in Parliament. In the United States of America, it is a, different case. It is a comparatively new country. From the very beginning, the American people even provided for the basic human rights in their constitution. In order to preserve these basic rights, the procedure for the amendment of the American Constitution is very complicated and difficult. Any amendment must be approved by a two-thirds majority in both Congress and the Senate. In addition, three-quarters of the states must approve the amendment. Alternatively, the amendment must be introduced by two-thirds of the states' legislatures and must be approved by two-thirds of both the Upper and Lower Houses in America. In the rest of the world there are similar examples. For instance, in the merger of Egypt and Syria, a referendum was held before it was carried out. Recently in the Scandinavian countries, both Norway and Denmark held a referendum to decide whether to join the European Common Market. In the case of Denmark, because the majority of the people supported the idea, they joined the Common Market. But Norway did not join the Common Market, because most of the people were against the idea. Although participation in the European Common Market is in appearance, only related to economic issues, however, once a country is in the Common Market, certain prerogatives of the country such as those relating to customs, trade, finance, and immigration will be affected by decisions of the Common Market. Therefore, because this question is too important, the countries decided to hold a referendum before going ahead. In 1958, when General De Gaulle took over power in France, he wanted to abolish the old Constitution, and held a referendum to decide on the issue. In our own case in 1963, before we decided to join Malaysia, although there was no provision in our State Constitution at that time, we nevertheless proceeded to hold a referendum to decide on the form and the conditions of merger. The other provision in this Constitutional amendment Bill is also very important. It provides that unless a two-thirds majority is obtained in a referendum, the control of the Armed Forces and the Police Force cannot be relinquished. All of us know that the Armed Forces are the protectors of the sovereignty of our country. We therefore cannot allow any foreign forces, through their local agents to take over control; otherwise, the sovereignty of our country will be undermined and the designs of the foreigners will be successful. I believe that the majority of our people possess the correct decision-making capabilities and will be in favour of resorting to a referendum on important issues such as this. These measures providing for a referendum are also in keeping with the principles of democracy. It is also a sign of democracy at work, because it involves the direct participation of the people in the important affairs of state. Through these very strict provisions in our Constitution, the foreign ambitious plotters will have their efforts cut short. It is also a blow to our own internal servile politicians who try to please the foreigners. This amendment Bill will make our Constitution more perfect, thus ensuring the integrity of our independence and sovereignty. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to support the amendment Bill. 3.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, speaking on this Bill, I wish to stress a point which may allude to serious appreciation by our people. Simply put, Sir, our country's growth is attributable to the measure of an international confidence in the country which attracted and induced investment. This, in turn, stimulated the economy which generated greater confidence and which attracted more investments and development skills, and so on. This confidence was achieved within the first three years of our independence in 1965. It is a confidence which has been vested in an independent and sovereign Singapore by bankers, industrialists and traders. These are shrewd men of the world who after much thought and calculation make the decision that ours will be a politically stable and viable country. This calculation surely included the appraisal that we are a hard working people, determined to remain independent and sovereign. On that score. Sir, we have managed to secure an international commitment of extensive investments in our country, which has accounted for a rapid all-round development and the general affluence of our society. Our independence and sovereignty, our right and power to determine our own national destiny through realistic policies of Government have convinced sources in various parts of the world that we are a people who should survive and prosper. However, there are also sources within and without our country which seriously entertain designs to incorporate our country in a foreign sovereign state, to resolve political or economic irksome problems or to achieve a political scenario in the region which fits in with the grand designs of super major and foreign powers. Sir, as long as the incorporation of Singapore in a foreign sovereign state remains conveniently achievable through a simple legislative act, interested sources will pursue their designs through black operations against the state. Hence, this Constitutional amendment which seeks to preserve our independence and sovereignty is welcome, since it makes the act of losing our independence and sovereignty a less simple one and truly, and much more, a decision of the people. 3.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to express my wholehearted support for this amendment. But I would like to ask the Minister a point of clarification, it is quite well laid here that there shall be no surrender or transfer of sovereignty unless two-thirds of the people are in favour of that move. But Article 52K provides for participation or co-operation in any scheme, venture, project, etc., and entering into any treaty, agreement, or any other arrangement which is beneficial or advantageous to Singapore. I understand that the government can enter into any of these arrangements. The problem then surely must be this: that if you have a government that intends to sell out the interests of the people, they can cloak the sell-out of our sovereignty, surrender or transfer, by any name - call it "co-operation", "treaty", "agreement" or "contract". To my mind, the interpretation of that action, whether or not it amounts to a surrender or a transfer of sovereignty, is most important. If one could interpret whether that action is a surrender or a transfer of sovereignty, then Article 52J applies. Otherwise, the government in selling out the interests of the people could well interpret that their action is beneficial or advantageous to Singapore and could proceed to do so under Article 52K. I would therefore like to ask the Minister: who does the interpretation of that action as to whether or not that act of entering into some treaty or contract with another power could amount to a sell-out of Singapore's interests and a surrender of sovereignty? And whether that action and its interpretation lie with Parliament at that time, or with the people, or with the Judiciary? 3.27 p.m.

Sir, unless we have Article it would mean that we could not any joint venture, or enter into any treaty, extradition treaty, or other s with any other country. Surely not the purpose of this Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to guarantee that at our sovereignty and independence remain with us, and should we want to join up with some other country, as we did with Malaysia before, we should go to the people - hold a referendum and two-thirds of those casting votes must be in favour. Unless we hive this exception in Article 52K, we would be precluded from even joining any other venture. It might be a trade venture. It might be a question of economics, or labour, or something else. Should there be any doubts, of course, it would be for the Courts or the Judiciary to interpret whether the move is a lawful move or ultra vires the Constitution. We have given very careful thought to this particular provision, and therefore have phrased it in the way that it has been finally drafted.

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 withol4t 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". The Factories Bill was introduced in Parliament early this year. It was committed to the Select Committee after its Second Reading on 28th March, 1972. The Bill now before the House is essentially the same as the earlier version except for a few additional amendments. Sir, we are very concerned with the trend of industrial accidents which have been increasing annually since 1967. Despite the efforts of the Government to inculcate safety consciousness among the workers and management and in spite of more stringent enforcement of the Factories Act by an expanded Factory Inspectorate, the number of industrial accidents is still increasing. There were 2,220 industrial accidents in the first nine months of this year compared with 1,374 for the same period last year, an increase of 62 per cent. Members are well aware of the social and economic cost of every industrial accident. The most painful aspect, however, is the human suffering, anguish and misery caused by the loss of life and health. The loss of a father, a husband, or a loved one can never be fully compensated whatever the quantum of monetary compensation may be. For this reason alone, our conscience dictates that we must do everything possible to prevent the occurrence of any industrial accident. Sir, we are aware of the fact that we cannot hope to eliminate or reduce the incidence of industrial accidents through legislation alone. However, a piece of legislation as archaic as the Factories Act enacted in vastly different circumstances 14 years ago will not make our task any easier. There have been times when we felt utterly frustrated simply because our powers were inadequate to deal more effectively with certain heartless employers who had no regard whatsoever for the welfare, health and safety of their employees. It is no consolation to us that there are not many of such employers. The greatest asset of Singapore is its human resources. We, therefore, value the life and health of each and every one of our workers. We cannot and will not tolerate such callousness especially when our human resources are being fully stretched by the burgeoning industries. The Bill now before the House seeks to remove the inadequacies of the present Factories Act. Sir, the Bill seeks to repeal and reenact with amendments the Factories Act (Chapter 123 of the 1970 Revised Edition) with a view to improving the health and safety measures and the welfare facilities of persons employed in factories; and ensuring a more stringent observance of the safety provisions so as to reduce the rate of industrial accidents. The more significant changes to the existing legislation are described in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill. I would like, however, to comment on some of the more important changes. Clause 94 of the Bill empowers the Minister to appoint an Advisory Council for Industrial Health and Safety. Hitherto, there was no institutional arrangement through which advice could be sought on matters pertaining to industrial health and safety. The proposed Advisory Council will have representatives from, management, trade unions and professional bodies and will, therefore, be able to collectively advise the Minister on matters affecting safety, health and welfare. Another important innovation introduced by the Bill is the appointment of safety officers. Clause 64 of the Bill requires certain factories to appoint safety officers solely for the purpose of exercising general safety supervision and for promoting the safe conduct of work. With the rapid growth of the number of factories in Singapore, it would be physically impossible for the Factory Inspectorate to make regular and periodic inspections on all these factories. It would therefore be necessary to require that management police their own factories and ensure that they are safe. In addition, factories employing 50 or more persons will be required to set up safety committees to promote health, safety and welfare in their establishments. The rationale behind this requirement, which is set out in clause 65 of the Bill, is that both management and labour, which will be represented on the safety committee, can jointly contribute and participate in the promotion of industrial safety. In keeping with the Government's antipollution programme, the occupier of a factory will be required to take special preventive measures against the emission of harmful substances in the atmosphere. He will also be asked to provide appropriate protection for employees engaged in hazardous processes. Clause 59 of the Bill will require the occupier to substitute, wherever possible, less harmful substances, processes or techniques for their more harmful counterparts. The Bill also pays greater attention to workers engaged in occupations involving special risks to health. Under clause 62 of the Bill, the Minister can make regulations to require medical supervision and examination of persons employed in occupations specified in the Seventh Schedule of the Bill. Under the present Act, certain provisions relating to the safety of an employee are made applicable to work carried out in a harbour or wet dock in constructing, re-constructing, repairing, refitting, painting, finishing, or breaking up a ship, or in scaling, surfing or cleaning boilers in a ship, or in cleaning any tank or holds in a ship. In view of the growing importance of our shipbuilding and repairing industry and the rapid expansion of our port and harbour facilities, it is necessary to make further provisions for the health and safety of those workers who are engaged in the shipyards, the port and the harbour. These will be provided for in clause 68 of the Bill. It is estimated that about 65 per cent of the accidents have been caused by the negligence or refusal on the part of the worker to use safety appliances provided and observe the measures stipulated. Clause 73 of the Bill makes it mandatory for employed persons to use the safety appliances provided. In order, therefore, that this provision is strictly observed, it is necessary that the culprits are brought to book quickly and dealt with effectively. Clause 81 of the Bill, therefore, provides that any authorised police officer or Inspector of Factories may arrest without any warrant any employed person who has contravened clause 73 of the Bill and produce him before a Magistrate's Court. Alternatively, the police officer or Inspector can straightaway serve a "ticket" on the offender to attend at the Magistrate's Court to answer the charge. In addition, clause 78 empowers an Inspector of Factories to require any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of an accident or a dangerous occurrence taking place in a factory to attend before him and state truly the facts and circumstances with which such person is acquainted concerning the accident or dangerous occurrence. Finally, the Bill provides for an increase in the quantum of fines or term of imprisonment imposed for infringements of the Bill. For instance, under the did Factories Act, the penalty for operating an unregistered factory was a fine not exceeding $1,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. Under this Bill, both the fine and term of imprisonment have been increased to $5,000 and six months respectively. Similarly, under the Factories Act, the penalty for an employed person found infringing the provisions of the Act s a fine not exceeding $500 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. This Bill has now increased the fine payable to a sum not exceeding $2,000. Such stiffening of the penalties for infringements of the law is clearly needed to bring home the urgency of the problem, if employers and workers are to be deterred from contravening the provisions of the Bill. Sir, in view of the importance of this Bill and the extensive amendments being made to the present Act, I propose to commit the Bill to a Select Committee again. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.42 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Hon. Members will recall that the Employment (Amendment) Bill was introduced in the last session of Parliament. It was committed to the Select Committee after its Second Reading on 2nd June, 1972. In my Second Reading speech then, I have explained the events leading to the Bill. I have also drawn attention to the more important provisions of the Bill which, together with the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill, are designed to give effect to the recommendations of the National Wages Council which have been accepted by the Government. However, for the benefit of new Members of the House, I shall recapitulate. Mr Speaker, Sir, in April this year, the National Wages Council, a tripartite body comprising representatives from labour, management and the Government made certain recommendations on wage increases and bonuses. In announcing the Government's acceptance at the NTUC May Day Rally this year, I emphasised that the recommendations should remain as guidelines for negotiations between employers and their employees, or trade unions representing the employees. We cannot make the recommendations mandatory because there are some employers who are genuinely unable to grant the increases recommended by the Council. To compel them to do so would tantamount to forcing them out of business. However, it is necessary to amend those provisions of the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act which would otherwise prevent the full implementation of the National Wages Council's recommendations particularly in regard to bonus which, under the present Act, is negotiable up to a maximum of one month's wages. On the 23rd May, the National Wages Council and representatives of the Chambers of Commerce, Singapore Employers Federation, National Employers Council, Singapore Manufacturers Association and the National Trades Union Congress, met the Prime Minister and myself, to discuss ways in which the recommendations of the National Wages Council could be given effect. The parties concerned unanimously agreed that the recommendations of the National Wages Council should not be approached in a legalistic way. However, in so far as the recommendations were contrary to any existing legislation, such legislation should be amended to remove any legal impediment to the implementation of the recommendations. Further where enabling provisions were necessary, for example, to make it possible for an employer to opt for either the 13th month payment and a bonus, or 13th month payment and an annual wage revision, such enabling legislation should be passed. The parties also agreed that where in any particular case no agreement could be reached between employer and union and a dispute was referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court, the Industrial Arbitration Court should take into account the recommendations of the National Wages Council and the special circumstances of that particular employer. The Employment (Amendment) Bill now before the House was drafted in the light of the3e agreements. It also incorporates those suggestions and proposals made to the Select Committee before the dissolution of the last Parliament and accepted by the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact section 46 of the Employment Act to enable an employee or a trade union of employees to negotiate for the payment of any of the following or a combination thereof: -

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are three important Bills tabled for Second and Third Readings today. The Employment (Amendment) Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill are, in my opinion, very important legislations on employment, which should be implemented in the spirit in which they are passed. We are all well aware of the need for the introduction of the Employment Act in 1968. The trade unions have co-operated fully to make the Bill workable. Since the implementation of the Employment Act, there has been so much talk of tripartism in industries and we have made all efforts to make tripartism work. Even in the Addendum to the President's speech, a call has been made to unions, employers and the Government to work together for the national interest. Greater emphasis is to be given to the prevention or elimination of, and I quote the Addendum, "nascent points of friction between labour and management before they assume ominous proportions". Similarly, in an address at the annual dinner of the Singapore Employers' Federation, the Minister for Labour has soundly rebuked those employers whose sluggishness in negotiations is not conducive to harmonious industrial relations with their workers. The purpose of these references which I have just made is to remind Members of the House that, despite the countless exhortations by the Government to both employers and unions to co-operate with one another in the interest of the Republic, there are still employers or their managerial representatives who regard trade unions as necessary nuisances to be tolerated rather than desirable partners to be co-operated with. I wish to bring to the attention of the House a regrettable but nevertheless true, instance of the medieval attitude of some employers or professional managements towards trade unions. One well-established and otherwise reputable employer in Singapore, whose workers are represented by an affiliate of the NTUC, recently decided in a mood of paternal benevolence to revise slightly upwards the salaries of their employees. But without previously consulting or even notifying the trade union concerned, the employer informed their employees on 20th October of this year that their salaries were to be revised with retrospective effect from 1st October. Members of this House may very well wonder what my grievance is, or rather what is the grievance of the trade union concerned, since the workers have been given a slight increase in pay by their employer. The matter, however, is not simply a question of pay increase. In the process of revising upwards the salaries of the workers, the employers have also changed the salary scales of the employees concerned, resulting in the need for a conversion exercise in the placement of employees from the old salary scales to the new salary scales. It is natural that with employees previously receiving different salaries under the old scales being grouped together on the same incremental point in the new salary scales, some employees receive disproportionately greater increases than others. The trade union concerned has informed the employer that its members are not happy over the basis of conversion in that the increases in salaries have been unnecessarily disproportionate and inequitable from an objective point of view, and that the conversion has been implemented without prior consultation with the union. The new scheme also does away with promotion grades. The managerial representative to whom the dissatisfaction was conveyed, however, replied that the revision of the salary scales was approved and sanctioned by the relevant person in charge of finance, who had not given any instruction or indication that the revised salary scales were to be implemented in consultation with the trade union representing the workers. In the circumstances, the managerial representative bluntly informed the union that there was no question of any discussion as to an alternative and fairer basis for conversion from the old salary scales to the revised salary scales. Another managerial representative, a very senior official of the establishment, also added that none of the workers had directly voiced any dissatisfaction with the revised salary scales and that it was the "damn trade union" which was seeking to create a dispute between the workers and their employer. The incident which I have just related may seem to be the kind to be expected of an unusually recalcitrant employer in the private sector of Singapore. I think Members of this House would be I surprised to learn that the trade union concerned is the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees (AUPE) and that the employer is none other than the Ministry of National Development and the Ministry of Finance of the Government of Singapore. Members of the House would be also interested to learn that the trade union concerned has served a notice, in writing, as far back as October 1962, to the Government to negotiate for better terms and conditions of service. The official side, in accepting the invitation to negotiate, had stated that such acceptance was "intended to promote goodwill and good relationship between your union and this Ministry". During the intervening 10 years between 1962 and 1972, the Ministry has never revoked the recognition accorded to the union to represent the employees of the Ministry. It is, therefore, a gross violation of all accepted norms of sound industrial relations practice for the Ministry unilaterally and arbitrarily to revise the salary scales and conditions of service and to proceed to implement such revised salary scales and conditions of service without prior consultation with, or even notification to, the trade union concerned. The retort of the Ministry, in response to the complaint by the union of such improper and arbitrary change in the terms and conditions of service, to the effect that no employees have expressed any dissatisfaction was irrelevant and mischievous. In the first place, no employee would himself wish to be singled out for the dubious attention of his supervisors or superior officers by voicing his dissatisfaction with the increase of pay accorded to him, when the same superior officer obviously considers such an increase in pay as a generous gesture on their own part. In the second place, since the employees are members of a registered trade union which has been accorded recognition by their employer, it is natural for the employees to voice their dissatisfaction to the union in the expectation that the union would take up their grievance with their employer. A point that should be remembered by Members of the House is that the Government has accorded to civil servants and other public employees, except those in the Singapore Police Force and in the Singapore Armed Forces, the right to organise and bargain collectively. Such civil servants and public employees may or may not have the right to bring their disputes before the Industrial Arbitration Court, but there is no law in Singapore to preclude or to prohibit trade unions representing civil servants or public employees from entering into negotiations with the respective ministries and departments on the terms and conditions of service of their members. Once recognition has been accorded to a trade union in respect of a particular group of employees the employer, whether it be a Government department or a private company, is expected to treat such union with some courtesy and respect as befitting a collective bargaining agent on behalf of such group of employees. Where the employer seeks to vary or change the terms and conditions of service of the employees, it is only proper that the employer secures the agreement of a trade union representing such employees to avoid any misunderstanding and friction. In the particular incident which I have related earlier, the revised salary scales may be beneficial to some of the employees concerned, but the conversion from the old salary scales to the new salary scales is a highly controversial matter and the immediate promotional prospects have been altered. These should have been referred to the trade union concerned for their views before the Ministry proceeds to implement such a proposal on the basis it arbitrarily decides upon. I do not doubt or question the integrity of the Ministry officials concerned. But even with the best of intentions, any individual person cannot be expected to be infallible in any matter or in every matter. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the tripartite basis of consultation so fervently advocated by the Government and implemented in relation to the National Wages Council, and there would have been no need for a trade union movement in Singapore at all. 4.08 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Employment (Amendment) Bill before this House is a logical consequence to the setting up and operation of the National Wages Council. It is to provide enabling provisions in the employment legislation to give effect to the implementation of the recommendations of the National Wages Council. However, there is a legal loophole in this exercise whereby some mischievous employers may take advantage of by denying their employees the benefit of the recommendations of the National Wages Council on the ground that they are technically not covered by the Employment Act. Recently, three NTUC affiliated unions received negative response from the employers to their invitation to negotiate wage increases along the national guidelines of the National Wages Council in respect of their members who are drawing monthly salaries exceeding $750. The immediate reply from these employers was that those drawing $750 and above do not come within the scope of the Employment Act, and therefore, are not entitled to receive any increments on the basis of the 1972 national wage guidelines laid down by the National Wages Council. The general understanding, when the National Wages Council was set up and when its recommendations were made this year, was that the National Wages Council's recommendations would apply to all workers, whether they are paid more or less than $750 per month. It will not lead to harmonious industrial relations if employers are to deny some of their employees the benefits of the recommendations of the National Wages Council, simply because their employees are drawing more than $750. You will be surprised, Sir, that in modern Singapore, we still have a few employers adopting a medieval approach to industrial relations. The Member for Telok Blangah has just given an example of one such employer. I would, therefore, like to seek the assurance of the hon. Minister for Labour that he would exercise his good offices to ensure that unenlightened employers do not frustrate the objectives of the Government in setting up the National Wages Council, by refusing to honour the National Wages Council's recommendations on technical grounds.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to get some information from the Members for Telok Blangah and Moulmein. I want to know how many employees of the NTUC are members of trade unions, and which unions do they belong to. Are they getting the 13th month payment?

Sir, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour wishes to get an answer from the, I say that all employees of trade Unions receive whatever is recommended by the National Wages Council.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my question is whether the employees of the NTUC are members of any union at all?

Sir, this is a democratic country, and the right to join or not to join a union lies with the worker himself. There is no restriction laid down by the trade unions that their employees cannot join a trade union. In fact, some of them are members of unions.

Mr Sia, I think it is better to carry on this private conversation in the tea room. 4.13 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as pointed out by the Member for Moulmein, there is some confusion in the interpretation as to whether or not the general recommendations of the National Wages Council should I only cover those whose salaries are below $750. There are many employers, both in the Singapore Manufactures Association and the Singapore Employers Federation, who queried the interpretation of the recommendations of the National Wages Council, but there is no clarification from anybody. It has been implied initially that since this is an amendment to the Employment Act, which covers employees whose salaries are up to $750, some employers take the view that it is not applicable to employees whose salaries are above $750. Other employers who are more generous perhaps feel that what you give to the lower grades should be extended to those in the higher grades. But the difficulty from the employers' point of view is that if you stretch it above $750, where do you draw the line? Is it above $750 up to $2,000, or what? I would therefore like to seek the good offices of the Minister for Labour for some guidance to the employers on this matter, because at the moment there is definitely - I would not say confusion- but a misunderstanding of where the line should he drawn, as has been queried by the Singapore Manufacturers Association itself.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the recommendations of the National Wages Council, there was no specific mention that wage increases should not be given to employees whose salaries are above $750. I presume that some employers will take the line that employees whose salaries are above $750 are not entitled to enjoy wage increases as recommended by the National Wages Council. I think this is their deliberate intention. I would strongly suggest that either the Government or the National Wages Council should clarify as to whether or not the recommendations on wage increases are meant for all workers irrespective of what their salaries are. 4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in recounting the events leading to the introduction of the Employment (Amendment) Bill, I have explained that the purpose of the Bill was to give effect to the recommendations of the National Wages Council. I have been listening patiently to the Member for Telok Blangah for the last 10 minutes, thinking that he was going to comment on the salient features of the Bill. It would appear that I have been mistaken. He has instead taken the opportunity to launch an attack on a matter which has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of the Bill under discussion. I am afraid I am in no position to comment on the particular instance raised by him as I have neither been acquainted with the facts by the union concerned nor have I the opportunity of listening to the other side of the story. No doubt, my colleagues, the Minister for National Development and the Minister for Finance, will take note of the Member for Telok Blangah's complaint and deal with it in due course. In any case, the Member for Telok Blangah is well aware of the established grievance procedure governing civil servants, and I have no doubt that he will take advantage of such established means of settling grievances to mutual satisfaction. The principle of tripartism is the correct approach to industrial relations in our situation today. I have again reiterated this view at the annual dinner of the Singapore Employers Federation referred to by the Member for Telok Blangah, and the Ministry will continue to advocate such a policy. I have reiterated earlier that the recommendations of the National Wages Council should not be approached in a legalistic way. Even though the Employment Act does not cover workers drawing more than $750 salary per month, there is nothing in the Act or in any other law to prevent employers from granting salary increases to such workers, in accordance with the recommendations of the National Wages Council. The main constraint will be the maintenance of good employer/ employee relations, as it affects the productivity of the firm and the ability of such employers to med the increased cost, without seriously affecting the firm's competitive position. The good offices of the Labour Ministry is always at the disposal of both unions and employers. The Members for Moulmein and Bukit Ho Swee can always avail themselves of the service when the need arises.

I thought the Minister was going to give way, Sir, in a matter of explanation.

Do you want to clarify, Mr Govindasamy?

Yes, Sir. The Minister just mentioned that he would allow his good offices to he used in the matter of tripartite difficulties. Perhaps he would use his good offices in a problem between the union and the Government itself, that is, the Ministry of Finance.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 4.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, as in the case of the Employment (Amendment) Bill, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill was committed to the Select Committee in the last Parliament after its Second Reading on 2nd June, 1972. In presenting the Employment (Amendment) Bill earlier, I have explained that it will be necessary to also amend the Industrial Relations Act to enable the implementation of the National Wages Council's recommendations. The Bill now before the House seeks to achieve this. Under the present Industrial Relations Act, the tenure of collective agreements or awards is between three and five years. Both employers and trade unions represented on the National Wages Council have expressed the view that this period is unduly long and restrictive. The Government has accepted this representation, and therefore proposes to reduce the number of years for which a collective agreement or award is binding from three to five years to two to three years. Section 31 of the Industrial Relations Act currently provides that the Industrial Arbitration Court shall have cognizance of a trade dispute where -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, talking about the fundamental effect that economic development has on our national construction, I would like to stress the point that as Singapore is a very small country we have no other alternative hut to rely on foreign investments in industries to promote our economy, so as to enable us to carry out the task of nation building. In the past the Government has spared no effort in promoting economic development, and we have achieved some brilliant success. An eloquent testimony to this can be found in the acute shortage of labour in Jurong. The achievement is all the more remarkable when we compare it with what we had a few years ago before independence. The present situation augurs well for nation building. The people of Singapore are well aware that as we have laid a sound foundation for industrial development in recent years we have to adjust our pace of progress in order to adapt to a new environment and to create a new model of society so as to establish harmonious and happy relationship among our people. As to when we will be able to succeed in our task, this will depend on the amount of effort put in by the people of Singapore. Sir, I would like to cite a very well-known example. With the rapid progress in our economic development, there have been great changes in the method of production and business organisation which hitherto have been based on the family-kinship system. Under such a system the employer-employee relationship was poor. The workers were poorly paid for their loyal service. In the light of present day situation, this abnormal exploitation of man by man has become ever more evident. Such a family business organisation and discriminatory industrial relationship have, in fact, become out-dated as well as a stumbling block to our economic development. On the other hand, the great influx of foreign investors not only brings with it a great deal of investments which are beneficial and very much needed, hut it also brings in new and even unique styles of management techniques. In this new industrial era, if we are to maintain the pace of our industrial development and the rate of economic growth and if we are to improve the living conditions of the great masses of workers, it is of vital importance that the National Wages Council should play a very decisive role. Apart from hoping that the National Wages Council will implement its policy effectively and firmly, I would also like to request the Government to embark on a comprehensive research into our industrial management techniques to find out what is suitable for local conditions, and to formulate new management techniques in order to encourage and popularise them as models for our society. For example, the management techniques used by the American entrepreneurs in Singapore are very successful. So are the management techniques used by the Japanese business concerns. Both these techniques are equally effective, although they may not be identical. There are both advantages and disadvantages in these management techniques. With the support of the Government, the people in Singapore can learn from these techniques in a very short time and adapt it to local conditions. It will then become a driving force in our economic development. At present, among the multitude of industrial workers, apart from a few who are satisfied with their lot, there is great mobility among the majority of the workers where a lack of discipline and responsibility exists. Such workers are opportunists. In other words, such a worker works in a factory only because he is better paid there. If another factory offers him higher wages, he will not hesitate to leave for a more lucrative employment. It is obvious that, before we can formulate an ideal set of working conditions, the people would consider monetary income as the sole criterion for employment. However, with the establishment of better working conditions, their concept will not change so easily. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to stress that although economy plays a decisive role in our nation building, it is not the only factor. Coupled with the general guidelines laid down by the National Wages Council, if we can evolve a certain work ethic or certain principles of employment, such as to imbue oneself with a love for work, a love for their workplace, and a love for their country, then we Singaporeans will be able to carve our destiny.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought that the debate on the President's Speech is over and done with last week, and that there should not be any further debates on this. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of modernisation of management techniques is not the subject of debate. Nevertheless I hope the people most concerned with management will take note of the points raised by the Member for Henderson.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 4.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, from time to time the Commissioner of Public Health has to close cemeteries and/or crematoria in certain locations in the public interest and burials or cremation in these locations will have to be discontinued. The Commissioner will then arrange for burials thereafter to take place in other locations provided by the State. The existing section 109 of the Environmental Public Health Act provides that the Commissioner of Public Health may close a cemetery place of burial, crematorium or any place used for the burning of corpses if it appears to him that such places are:- `(a). . . in such a state as to be dangerous to health; or (b). . . (i) . . . inoxious or offensive or unfit for use as a cemetery or crematorium; (ii) . . . cannot be further used for the burial or burning of the dead without danger to public health; (iii) . . . being used in contravention of any condition of the licence; or (iv) . . . no longer required.' The Bill which is now before the House provides for the repeal of the existing section 109 of the Environmental Public Health Act, and the substitution of a new section 109 which will empower the Commissioner of Public Health to close a cemetery, burial ground, crematorium or any place used for the burning of corpses if he is of the opinion that burials or the burning of corpses should be wholly discontinued in such cemetery, crematorium or place; or such cemetery, crematorium, place or any part thereof is being used in contravention of any condition of the licence issued in respect of the same. It will be noted from what I have just said that the new section empowers the Commissioner to close cemeteries or crematoria without having to assign reasons for doing so, as required under the existing law. Land in Singapore is scarce. It must be used to serve the needs of the living. It is, therefore, esser4tial that the Commissioner should have adequate powers to reduce the present wasteful profusion of cemeteries. The commissioner should also have the power to confine burials to the State-owned cemeteries, thereby reducing the acreage earmarked for burials and putting the land to use for the living. The existing subsection (2) of section 109 provides that no closing of a cemetery or crematorium, or revocation or amendment of a licence, shall have effect "unless and until it has been confirmed by the Minister and until the expiration of one month from such confirmation." in the new subsection (2) 01 section 109 set out in the Bill, the requirement of awaiting the expiration of one month from the Minister's confirmation is removed. The closing order is effective immediately on confirmation, Sir, if the confirmation is not effected immediately, fresh burials could take place during the one month period between confirmation by the Minister arid the effective date of the confirmation. This would aggravate the problem of exhumation and would delay re-use of the land. 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 Lim Kim San]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.43 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 the Public Utilities Board with a more efficient and flexible administration. Electricity contains both an energy component and a non-energy or wattless component. In clause 2 of the Bill, it is now proposed to substitute for the word "energy" a more appropriate word, "electricity". Consequential amendments are also made in the Bill to substitute for the words "light", "electrical energy" and "energy" wherever they appear in the Act, the word "electricity" to give uniformity. The Bill, under clause 3 thereof, also amends the constitution of the Board from the present fixed number of ten non-public officers to not less than five but not more than ten members to be appointed by the Minister. Consequently, the quorum for meetings of the Board is also amended under clause 4 of the Bill, from seven to a majority of the members of the Board. These amendments, Sir, are necessary as, since the enactment of the provision of section 5 of the Act, it has not been possible to appoint the whole of the ten members resulting in the Board sometimes being without a quorum to conduct its business. Clause 5 of the Bill enables the Board to perform any functions assigned to it by the Minister, and clause 6 empowers the Board to incorporate companies to carry out any of its functions. With these amendments, Sir, the Board will now be able to provide consultancy services and to form a company to provide such consultancy services. Under clauses 7 and 8, the Board is conferred with additional power to cut off supplies of gas and electricity in case of emergency, fire and in certain other circumstances. It also empowers the Board to cut off supply of water in case of misuse or waste. For administrative expediency, provision is made under clause 9 of the Bill for the Board to delegate to the Chairman certain of its powers, functions and duties. Clause 10 of the Bill makes it necessary for the Board to obtain the approval of the Minister in prescribing tariffs, and it also enables the Board to fix different tariffs for consumers similarly situated for a temporary period to he approved by the Minister. The Public Utilities Board (Provident Fund) Rules have been amended to enable the employees to appoint nominees to whom the amount standing to the credit of a deceased member may be given. Although paragraph (e) of section 31 (2) of the Public Utilities Act provides for the appointment of a nominee, paragraph (h) of the same section does not include that a receipt by the nominee or nominees is a valid discharge to the Board for any moneys payable. Clause 11 of the Bill will remedy the situation. As the offence for obstructing or hindering the Board's employees in the performance of their duties is considered serious, it is proposed to increase the penalty under section 82 of the Public Utilities Act from $500 to $1,000, similar to such penalty as provided under the Port of Singapore Authority Act, the Jurong Town Corporation Act and the Housing and Development Act. Clause 13 of the Bill provides for this. 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 Lim Kim San]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order. I suspend this sitting now and shall take the Chair again at 5.20 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.50 p.m. until 5.20 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.20 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, two new appointments were created recently in the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, namely, a Deputy Director and a Chief Special Investigator, to cope with the increasing work in the Bureau. But the Prevention of Corruption Act as it now stands does not confer on the incumbents of these two posts the powers that are now being exercised by the other officers of the Bureau, namely, the Assistant Directors, Senior Special Investigators and Special investigators. This Bill, therefore, seeks to amend the said Act in order to confer on the Deputy Director and the Chief Special investigator the powers now exercised by the Assistant Directors and Investigators of the Bureau. 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 E. W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee.

5.23 p.m. Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 1, to leave out "following". This amendment is necessary to remedy a clerical error made in clause 3 of the Bill. Amendment agreed to.

There is a note to effect a consequential amendment: In page 2, line 4, to leave out ":-" and insert a full-stop. This will be done. There is also an error in page 2, line 3, the verb "is" should read "are", as the subject of that verb is "the following provisions". We will take it as a clerical error.

I agree, Sir. Shall I move it formally?

No, it is not necessary. We will take it as a typographical emendation. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." At an International Conference held in Brussels in 1968, participating governments were called upon to adopt an amended set of rules relating to Bills of Lading in place of the Hague Rules. The Hague Rules have formed part of our laws since 1927, being set out in the Schedule to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (Chapter 184 of the Revised Edition). These Rules provide for the responsibilities, liabilities, rights, and immunities of carriers vis-a-vis shippers in contracts (usually Bills of Lading) for carriage of goods by sea in relation to the loading, handling, storage, carriage, custody, care and discharge of such goods. The Hague Rules have been amended by a Protocol agreed at Brussels in February, 1968. The Protocol incorporates changes, which international maritime nations considered necessary, since the Hague Rules were first adopted in 1924. The Protocol does not constitute any change in substance in the balance of liabilities and responsibilities of carriers vis-a-vis shippers, and it merely unifies certain rules of law relating to Bills of Lading. Most maritime nations of the world have acceded to this Protocol and have incorporated it in their legislation. Singapore, in keeping with other world maritime nations, has also acceded to the Protocol and is now, therefore, required to pass legislation to incorporate the Protocol. The Bill now before the House seeks to give effect to amendments to the Hague Rules relating to the Carriage of Goods by Sea contained in the Protocol agreed internationally at Brussels in 1968. It repeals the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act which gave effect in Singapore to the Hague Rules in their original form. The Rules in their amended form are set out in the schedule to the Bill. 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 Hon Sui Sen]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the financial year of the National Statistical Commission of Singapore under the law is the calendar year, whereas the financial year of the Government is the period of 12 months from the 1st day of April to the 31st day of March in each year. However, as the Commission is wholly dependent on Government funds for its operation, having the same financial year would facilitate its financial estimating and control. It is necessary, now, to make provision through clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the National Statistical Commission of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, 1972, to enable the Commission to adopt as its financial year a period of 12 months ending on the 31st day of March in each year and to prepare its accounts accordingly. There is a transitional provision for the Commission's financial year in 1972 to be the period between the 7th day of January 1972 and the 31st day of March 1973, the 7th day of January 1972 being the day of coming into operation of the National Statistical Commission of Singapore. 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 Hon Sui Sen]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.33 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Monetary Authority of Singapore Act (Chapter 195 of the Revised Edition) was passed by Parliament on 2nd September, 1970. Parts I, II and V of this Act came into operation on 26th December, 1970, while the remaining parts came into operation on 1st January, 1971. It is now proposed that, in order to facilitate Singapore's development as a financial centre and in the light of experience gained during the period of operation, certain amendments be made to the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act. These amendments to the Act are incorporated in the Amendment Bill now before the House. The principal amendments appear in clauses 5 and 6. Clause 5 is designed to confer upon the Monetary Authority of Singapore certain additional functions such as: (i) purchasing, selling, discounting and re-discounting bills of exchange and promissory notes. (ii) granting advances to certain approved financial institutions against Treasury Bills and securities of the Government, gold coins or bullion, bills of exchange, promissory notes and warehouse warrants. These additional functions will enable the Authority to provide lender of last resort facilities to approved financial institutions, and are necessary for the establishment of an efficient money market, which will in turn expand and improve the financial infrastructure of Singapore and enhance Singapore's development as a financial centre. Clause 6 introduces two new sections 24A and 24B. In section 24A, provision is made for the Authority to grant special loans to banks and approved financial institutions in times of monetary instability against such forms of security as the Authority may consider acceptable. In section 24B, power is conferred upon the Authority, if it thinks fit, to issue directives and guidelines to approved financial institutions for their operations and orderly development. It is proposed also to make the following amendments, which appear in clauses 2, 3 and 4: (a) Clause 2 increases the authorised paid-up capital of the Authority from $30 million to $100 million. The authorised paid-up capital of $30 million us now fully paid-up, and it is necessary to provide for future increases in capital, whenever these are considered desirable. (b) Clause 3 would enable the Authority to have greater flexibility in the appointment and promotion of certain categories of persons without having to seek the advice of the Public Service Commission on all appointments. This clause, which has been drafted at the suggestion of the Public Service Commission, will enable the Authority by Gazette notification to specify the posts and appointments regarding which it would have to act on the advice of the Public Service Commission. (c) Clause 4 would enable the functions, duties and powers conferred upon a public officer under any written law to be transferred to the Authority. This amendment contemplates the transfer to the Authority of powers and duties such as those conferred upon the Commissioner of Chit Funds under the Chit Funds Act. It is envisaged that such powers transferred from time to time to the Authority would be those related exclusively to money and finance. 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 Hon Sui Sen]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

5.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name, as it appears on the Order Paper. Sir, Standing Order 95 (1) (a) provides that: `There shall be a Committee to be known as the Committee of Selection appointed as soon as practicable after the beginning of every session to perform the functions allotted to it by these Standing Orders, and for such other matters as Parliament may from time to time refer to it.' Standing Order 95 (1) (b) provides that: `The Committee of Selection shall consist of the Speaker as Chairman, and seven Members of Parliament to be appointed by Parliament, in such manner as shall ensure that, so far as is possible, the balance between the Government benches and the Opposition benches in Parliament is reflected in the Committee.' There being only one party in this House, it is decided to appoint the Leader of the House, the Government Whip and five Backbenchers. Sir, I hope that the House will find this satisfactory. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, * That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 95, appoints the following as members of the Committee of Selection: E. W. Barker Ch'ng Jit Koon N. Govindasamy Hwang Soo Jin Sia Kah Hui Tan Eng Liang Yeo Choo Kok.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to the 22nd November, 1972."-[Mr Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen minutes to Six o'clock p.m. to Wednesday, 22nd November, 1972.