Hansard, 1973-11-30

Under the provisions of clause 2 (d) of Article 30 of the Constitution of Singapore, I have granted permission to the following Members to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Encik A. Rahim Ishak (Siglap), Minister of State for Foreign Affairs --on 5th and 6th September, from 24th to 29th September, and from 9th to 16th November, 1973. Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson) -- from 6th to 12th September, 1973. Mr Hon Sui Sen (Havelock), Minister for Finance - from 6th to 28th September, 1973. Mr Lim Guan Hoo (Bukit Merah), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs - from 7th to 26th September, 1973. Mr Phey Yew Kok (Boon Teck)- from 10th to 13th September, from 23rd to 31st October, and from 7th to 13th November, 1973. Mr Yong Nyuk Lin (Geylang West), Minister for Communications - from 10th September to 10th October, 1973. Mr Tang See Chim (Chua Chu Kang), Deputy Speaker from 16th September to 17th October, 1973. Encik Sha'ari Bin Tadin (Kampung Chai Chee), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture- from 13th to 15th September, from 20th September to 3rd October, and from 23rd to 27th November, 1973. Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol) - from 24th September to 6th October, 1973. Dr Toh Chin Chye (Rochore), Minister for Science and Technology - from 24th September to 6th October, 1973. Mr Ong Pang Boon (Telok Ayer), Minister for Labour - from 29th September to 7th October, and from 19th to 30th November, 1973. Mr Ivan C. Baptist (Potong Pasir) - from 4th October to 10th November, 1973. Dr Augustine H. H. Tan (Whampoa) - from 9th to 15th October, 1973. Encik Othman Bin Wok (Pasir Panjang), Minister for Social Affairs - from 10th to 14th October, 1973. Mr Ho Kah Leong (Jurong) - from 10th November to 1st December, 1973. Dr Tan Eng Liang (River Valley)- from 20th October to 15th November, 1973. Dr Goh Keng Swee (Kreta Ayer), Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence - from 23rd to 31st October, 1973. Mr S. Rajaratnam (Kampung Glam), Minister for Foreign Affairs - from 24th to 28th October, and from 9th to 21st November, 1973. Dr Ang Kok Peng (Crawford), Minister of State for Communications - from 7th to 13th November, 1973. Mr Ho Cheng Choon (Geylang East), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development - from 7th to 22nd November, 1973. Mr Ong Soo Chuan (Nee Soon), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs - from 7th to 13th November, and from 28th November to 15th December, 1973. Mr Ahmad Mattar (Leng Kee), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education - from 7th to 13th November, 1973. Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah) - from 7th to 13th November, 1973. Encik Abdul Aziz Karim (Kallang) - from 7th to 13th November, 1973. Mr J. F. Conceicao (Katong) - from 7th to 13th November, 1973. Mr Ang Nam Piau (Thomson) - from 13th to 25th November, 1973. Mr Chai Chong Yii (Bukit Batok), Minister of State for Education - from 18th to 28th November, 1973. Mr Chan Chee Seng (Jalan Besar), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs - from 19th to 30th November, 1973. Mr Jek Yeun Thong (Queenstown), Minister for Culture from 23rd November to 8th December, 1973. Mr Yeo Choo Kok (Delta) - from 24th November to 6th December, 1973. Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein) - from 25th November to 7th December, 1973. Mr Chor Yeok Eng (Bukit Timah), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment - from 25th November to 12th December, 1973. Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar), Prime Minister - on 30th November, 1973. Mr Fong Sip Chee (Stamford), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour - from 1st to 10th December, 1973. Mr Wee Toon Boon (Sepoy Lines), Minister of State for the Environment - from 3rd to 15th December, 1973. Tuan Haji Ya'acob Bin Mohamed (Kampung Ubi), Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office - from 10th to 24th December, 1973. Encik Rahmat Bin Kenap Al-Haj (Geylang Serai) -- from 20th December, 1973 to 31st January, 1974.

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the dates stated:- 19th September, 1973 Companies (Amendment) Bill. 20th September, 1973 (i) Multi-Level Marketing and Pyramid Selling (Prohibition) Bill; and (ii) Securities Industry (Amendment) Bill. 22nd September, 1973 Mental Disorders and Treatment (Amendment) Bill. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order. Presentation of Paper by the Minister for Social Affairs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I present to Parliament the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Robinson's Fire, 1973. I shall be making a Ministerial Statement* on this at the appropriate time. (*Cols. 1314-9.)

asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will consider introducing legislation to freeze, for an appropriate period, all ground and house rentals which are at present charged at rates below $250 per month and which are outside the existing scope of the Control of Rent Act, so as to prevent landlords taking undue advantage of tenants in the lower income group.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is considered inappropriate to introduce legislation to freeze all ground rents and house rents not more than $250 per month for premises which are not subject to the Control of Rent Act. The premises subject to rent control are those built before 7th September, 1947, and it is undesirable at this stage to extend this Act beyond its present limits. The Government is conscious of the need to safeguard the legitimate interests of tenants, particularly those in the lower income groups. Towards this end, the Housing and Development Board has stepped up its development programme to meet the housing requirements of the lower income groups, thus keeping rents for them within bounds. Action on the lines suggested by the Member for Jalan Kayu will tend to retard the pace of building both of new residential estates, condominiums, and housing in urban renewal areas.

asked the Minister for Finance if he will consider arranging for souvenir coins, like the 7th SEAP Games $5 silver coins, to be sold in future at the various community centres as this will avoid long queues and waste of time and also enable the rural people to have the opportunity of obtaining such coins.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Sembawang's suggestion has been submitted to the Currency Board for consideration along with other similar suggestions which I have also received. However, I ought to say that there are problems of manpower and security involved in selling coins elsewhere than at the Currency Board. The difficulty about commemorative and other coins not intended for large day-to-day currency circulation is, as with the issue of stamps, to judge exactly what number would be appropriate for each issue. The number must not be too large if their value for collectors is not to be debased. On the other hand, if the number is too limited, we have the problem of long queues and the waste of time referred to by the Member for Sembawang. Perhaps the Board has misjudged the constantly growing number of numismatists and their great enthusiasm for our cleanly struck coins with their interesting designs. If so, I will suggest to them that the number of coins can be somewhat increased without detriment to their interest for collectors. The Member for Sembawang and other coin enthusiasts can be certain, however, that a policy of limited issue will be maintained to ensure that any slight queueing or time spent will still have been worthwhile.

2.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Robinson's fire has been tabled in this House earlier for the information of Members. This valuable report, which has been accepted by the Government, is the culmination of careful deliberations by the 3-man Commission headed by Mr Justice F. A. Chua and assisted by Mr C. A. V. Chew and Mr Jimmy Chen Wie Ying, and I wish to record Government's appreciation of their public service. I also wish to thank the various individuals and organisations listed in the Appendices to the Report, who submitted memoranda or otherwise assisted the Commission in its work. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Commission has found that the fire that destroyed Robinson's Departmental Store at Raffles Place on the morning of 21st November, 1972, resulting in the death of nine persons and the destruction of property worth approximately $21 million, was caused by a short circuit as a result of the overloading of an electrical branch circuit on the ground floor. The Commission is satisfied that the criticisms levelled at the Fire Brigade of poor fire-fighting performance are unjustified, and that the Fire Brigade fought the fire under trying conditions and had done well in containing the fire from spreading to other buildings in that area. The Commission is of the view that by the time the Fire Brigade was summoned, Robinson's Departmental Store could not have been saved. The fire had been allowed to be nursed in the loft stores without being detected, and the domestic fire-fighting squad was fighting the fire at the wrong locations. It is appropriate at this juncture for me to congratulate the Fire Brigade not only on its commendable performance on that occasion, but also on the general manner in which it had performed its role for the benefit of the community. In regard to the recommendations made by the Commission, Members many wish to know that many of the recommendations have, in fact, been implemented and some are being actively pursued. In order to prevent the recurrence of such a catastrophe, the Commission has recommended the introduction of legislation to enable appropriate authorities to implement a system of periodic inspections of places of public resort to check on unauthorised additions and alterations to buildings which might endanger the safety of the public. The Building Control Bill, now before this House, strengthens the law in respect of building control to enable the Building Authority to take more speedy and effective action against unauthorised building works and dangerous buildings, and provides for enhanced penalties in respect of offences. Provision to control, regulate and supervise places to which the public have access, has also been provided for. The Commission has recommended that for electrical installations of a stipulated higher current rating, consideration be given by the Public Utilities Board to grade the licensing of electrical contractors so as to ensure that only contractors with the requisite professional expertise and experience are allowed to undertake such work. It was also suggested that the 1947 Municipal Wiring Rules and Conditions of Supply should be updated. In this connection, I must state that towards this end, the Public Utilities Board has already initiated action to draft appropriate legislation and set up the necessary administrative machinery. A further recommendation of the Commission is that a public authority be charged with the responsibility for ensuring the proper construction and maintenance of lifts to which the public may have access. The Ministry of National Development has decided in this connection to place the control of the installation of lifts and escalators under its Building Control Division, and the control of their maintenance under the Commissioner of Buildings appointed under the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act. The Commission has also suggested that a Committee be formed to look into ways and means of rescuing people trapped in lifts in situations of power failure. Representatives from the Ministry of National Development, the Building Control Division, the Singapore Fire Brigade, the Singapore Institute of Standards and Industrial Research and the Commissioner of Buildings are now actively looking into the question of installation, in lifts, of equipment to facilitate emergency rescue operations and the operational aspects of rescuing people trapped in lifts. Another recommendation of the Commission is that all lift attendants be given proper training to deal with emergencies and that managements of establishments of public resort be required to provide effective training for all staff and domestic fire-fighting squads in preparation for any emergency. Here, I wish to point out that the Singapore Fire Brigade has always assisted with such training on request. The necessity of amending existing legislation to make it mandatory for managements of establishments of public resort to provide for the recommended training in fire-fighting and in dealing with emergencies is being looked into. Finally, Sir, a few recommendations pertaining exclusively to the Singapore Fire Brigade have also been made by the Commission, viz: -

2.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the present selling prices of Housing and Development Board flats were fixed in 1965 when the "Home Ownership for the People" scheme was first introduced. In the last eight years the cost of providing public housing has risen considerably, mainly due to increases in, firstly, the prices of building materials and wages pushing up construction costs; secondly, land cost; thirdly, clearance and resettlement costs; and lastly, additional costs due to improvement in the design of flats and better communal and recreational facilities. The Housing and Development Board can, therefore, no longer continue to sell flats at prevailing prices without incurring heavy losses. There are over 100,000 applicants on the waiting list for Housing Board flats; more than 75,000 wanting to buy and more than 25,000 wanting to rent. The Board can only satisfy this great demand for flats without suffering a great financial loss if the selling prices of Housing Board flats are raised. As from 1st January of next year, the selling price of Housing Board flats will he increased by $2,000 for two-room fiats, $4,000 for three-room flats, $6,000 for four-room flats and $8,000 for five-room flats. In order to help the lowest income groups, there will be no increase in the selling price of one-room flats. The new selling prices will be as follows: one-room flat, no change. Two-room (standard), Urban $9,500, Suburban $8,200, New Town $6,900. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will proceed to give the prices of various other categories of flats in the Urban, Suburban and New Town areas respectively. Urban Sub- New Types of Flat urban Town Two-room Improved $11,000 $ 9,500 $8,000 Three-room Standard $14,500 $11,800 $10,200 Three-room Improved $17,500 $13,500 $11,800 Three-room Corner $18,500 $15,000 $12,800 Four-room flats $26,000 $21,500 $18,500 Five-room flats $41,000 $35,500 $30,000

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has just thrown a bombshell in front of us. We were expecting price increases, but to hear that the lowest increase is going to be $2,000 is too hard to take. I wonder if the Housing Board is also joining in the inflation racket! It would be reasonable to suppose that people who have registered for purchase of flats have to wait for some time before increases in costs would be effected and borne by them. But there are also other categories of people who are awaiting allocation of flats. By "people", I mean those who were affected by urban renewal sometime ago.

Sir, will the Member get on to his question? In a Ministerial Statement a Member may ask questions, but not make speeches.

Sir, I will conic to the point. What about those who arc affected by urban renewal? The compensation to be paid by the Resettlement Department has been agreed in some cases as far back as six months ago, and the Housing Board was not able to allocate flats to those to he evicted at the time, when they should have been allocated, and they are still waiting. Will these people have to pay the same increased cost for flats that the Minister has just enumerated?

Mr Speaker, Sir, soon after the last elections, I received a paper from the Housing and Development Board asking for an increase in the sale prices of flats. Because of the rising cost of living, I have resisted the proposed increases for more than a year; but we cannot resist it forever, and I have given reasons why the costs of these flats have gone up. As for the various categories of applicants, whether they are affected by urban renewal, or whether they have applied three years ago, or whether their house is affected by some Government project and have to move, there must be a dividing line; there must be a cutoff date. We therefore chose the 1st of January next year. Whatever date you choose, people will grumble; but the best date one can choose is the beginning of the new year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has just pointed out that building costs have gone up. Is it possible for him to elaborate on these increases? He mentioned increases in the cost of building materials as well as labour. If he elaborates on this, I shall follow up with another two questions.

Sir, over the last several years, prices have gone up, but they have gone up significantly over the last twelve months. The percentage increases in the main building materials were cement about 33 per cent, steel about 100 per cent, timber 100 per cent, and labour 50 per cent. Roughly, the overall increase in building materials and labour per unit of 3-room flats works out to be about 35 per cent over the last twelve months.

Sir, in order to save the Minister's time, I shall proceed straightaway with the other two questions. It just came to my mind the question of conservancy charges and rentals. In this respect, will the Minister indicate to the House as to whether conservancy charges and rentals are likely to be increased also? My next question is: in view of the oil crisis, there is a move to cut down wasteful use of electricity, may the House be informed as to what the Housing and Development Board is going to do about it?

Sir, in direct reply, charges for service and conservancy must go up. The cost, I believe, is about $6.50 a day, but the costs of providing these services have gone up, particularly the amenities for Housing Board flats which have improved considerably. The Housing Board is responsible for maintenance of parks, playing fields and other improved amenities. But there is one peculiarity and, that is, that the old Singapore Improvement Trust flats have been totally exempted from all service and conservancy charges ever since they were built. It is time this policy was changed. All I can assure the Member is that if these charges go up, they will go up only sometime next year. As for rents, the likelihood is that they will go up, but we will give consideration to these increases only after receipt of the recommendations of the National Wages Council, which will probably be in the middle of next year. As for energy conservation, every alternate lighting point along the common corridors of Housing Board flats, except along the staircases, has been cut off. Altogether 23,000 fluorescent tubes have been removed and kept in the stores. Further, the lighting hours have been cut down by two hours, the common lights are switched on an hour later than before and switched off an hour earlier in the morning.

Sir, one of the reasons advanced by the Minister just now for the increase in selling prices was the cost of land. Will the Minister consider selling Housing Board flats at the old rate to those people affected by urban renewal? The reason is that since the compensation they are going to receive is based on the old rate, they should be allowed to purchase flats at the old rate. The Housing Board should not charge them the higher selling prices now, because the Board was not able to allocate them any flats earlier. Does the Minister want a new cut-off date for this category?

I do not follow the question. Is the Member referring to the landowner or just the tenant?

Both tenants and landowners, Sir. You have computed compensation based on the old rate for the house, land, etc. But the prices of houses have gone up or are likely to go up further from 1st January.

Perhaps the hon. Member does not know that even the Housing Board, when it purchases land from the Government or from the private sector, has to pay for the land at market prices. One of the reasons I gave for the increase in building costs was the increase in land costs which have gone up considerably in Singapore. Hence, Government's policy statement last September barring foreigners from purchasing land in Singapore without permission; and I shall be tabling the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill very soon after this. This is Government's effort to prevent speculation in land prices in order to stabilise, if not lessen, land prices. But we have always been concerned with the amount of compensation payable either to farmers in the rural areas or to urban dwellers. It was not long ago that the compensation rates went up, and if conditions are such that the amount of rates should go up, they will go up.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with the increase in the purchase price of Housing Board flats, will there be a consequent increase in the rent for Housing Board flats?

Sir, I have said just now that consideration will be given to such an increase sometime next year. But we do not want to do everything at one blow. All I can tell is that if the rents go up, they will not go up for the next six months.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. Will the Minister kindly let me know if these new prices for Housing Board flats apply to all new flats that are balloted with effect from 1st January, or are they for new applications?

The answer is, yes, no more flats will be balloted for the rest of the year. Sir, the next ballot will be sometime next year, and prices will go up. We must have a cut-off date. There have been letters to the press grumbling about the flats in Marine Parade which are nearly ready, "Why don't we sell them now?" The objection is this. If we balloted away one or two blocks of flats in Marine Parade in December, and they would have to be sold at the old prices, then if we have a second ballot next year with the increased prices, those who buy in the second ballot will grumble. They will point to their neighbours next door and say, "That person paid $2,000 or $4,000 less." This policy is not a pleasant one. But unless we increase the prices of flats, it will be uneconomical for the Housing Board and the Minister for Finance to increase considerably the subsidies that Government is already providing for cheap low-cost housing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister did say that he would consider increasing the quantum of compensation for people affected by urban renewal, and he also said that he would consider it when the time is ripe. I feel that the time is ripe now. Will the Minister consider increasing the compensation especially for those people who have just been affected by urban renewal sometime in August, as they will be obtaining their flats after January? The increased compensation can help them meet the extra costs that are to be charged for Housing Board flats with effect from 1st January, 1974.

I will have to work out the details. All I can say is that it is unlikely that compensation rates will be increased by the end of this year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Minister mentioned that the Housing Board has got to acquire land from the Government at market prices. Obviously this is pushing up the cost of these flats. May I suggest, Sir, that the Government refrain from making too much profit in selling land to the Housing Board?

That is a difficult question for me to answer, because I represent the Housing Board. I also represent the Commissioner of Lands who sells the land, and the Housing and Development Board comes under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of National Development. But it is not exactly taking from the left hand and giving it to the right hand. I cannot do a thing without reference to the hon. Minister for Finance who rightly looks after Government's money.

3.11 p.m.

"to amend the Land Acquisition Act (Chapter 272 of the Revised Edition)", 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 provide for the incorporation of the Timber Industry Board as a body corporate, for the purposes of promoting, regulating and improving the timber industry and trade, for the establishment of a Timber Industry Board Fund and for matters connected therewith, and to repeal the Timber Export Industry Board (Incorporation) Act (Chapter 203 of the Revised Edition)", 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.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to provide for the control and rationing of essential supplies and to repeal the Food Control Act (Chapter 246 of the Revised Edition) and the Control of Petroleum Fuel and Lubricants Act (Chapter 242 of the Revised Edition)". Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the Bill, laid upon the Table by the Minister. Typed copies of the Bill distributed to Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The international economic situation is not encouraging. In recent months, Singapore, like other countries in this region, has suffered from high rice and bread prices because of poor harvests and export bans by producing countries, themselves short of such supplies. The recent Middle East War has led to crude oil shortages. Unless the supply situation improves, crude oil shortages will lead to reduced supplies of petrol, fertilisers, plastics and other petroleum products. There will also be a slowdown in the production of high energy content manufactured goods, such as steel and cement. Shortages of essential commodities will dislocate all economies, including our own very badly. In the current economic uncertainty, all that Singapore can do is to take steps to reduce adverse effects as far as possible. The Government is therefore raising the rice stockpile from 25,000 tons to 90,000 tons, sufficient for at least six months' consumption. While there appears to be some improvement in the world food grains situation, a reasonable rice stockpile still appears to be a prudent precaution. Six months' stocks will tide Singapore over should harvests fail and shortages occur again. Similarly, the Government and the oil industry are taking steps to safeguard oil stocks to meet Singapore's own direct needs and also to supply, with bunker fuel and aviation gas, ships and international airlines calling regularly at Singapore. However, crude oil supplies to our refineries have been reduced and it will be necessary for all Singapore households, industries and business firms to exercise the greatest economy in the use of oil and electricity. While Government will do its best to ensure security of supplies, Singapore, not being a producer of rice nor of oil or other primary products, will have to pay competitive prices in the international market place. Otherwise, supplies to Singapore would just dry up. So long as we can pay internationally-competitive prices, adequate, if perhaps because of more restricted production, somewhat reduced supplies will keep flowing and our economy will be able to function, though it may grow more slowly. International events can, however, take a turn swiftly for the worse, entirely outside Singapore's control. Should there be a rapid deterioration, there could be actual shortages of essential commodities for Singapore. In such a situation, it would be the duty of Government to ensure fair and equitable distribution of scarce commodities. This Control of Essential Supplies Bill, 1973, when enacted will give Government powers to control, including possibly by rationing, the domestic sale of essential commodities. These, however, are emergency powers to be exercised only when the situation demands, and then only with the consent of the President. The Minister, on his own, will not be able to invoke such powers. I would also like to stress that this Bill will regulate the distribution only of essential commodities and not of any other article. The Government has no intention and, indeed, it can have no effective means of regulating domestic and international trade. Finally, I would like to repeat that these are emergency powers which will enable Government to act firmly and decisively in a crisis. There are no indications as yet that stocks of any essential commodities will fall to critical levels. The public should therefore not allow themselves to be panicked into unnecessary purchases at excessively high prices. The public should treat rumours of shortages with great scepticism. If they allow themselves to be persuaded by such rumours, they run the danger of bringing about the situations they fear and of benefiting those who, in the first place and for their own purposes, started these rumours. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just a small point of clarification. Will this Bill consequently lead to the control of prices of essential foodstuffs?

No, Sir. The Bill is not intended to control prices. But there is another Bill which enables us, if necessary, to do that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as you know, with the present high cost of living - to use a Chinese expression, Tsai mi chu hsin kui ter shih ho - if the Government still does not think that now is the time to introduce some kind of price control, I would like to know what is the reason for it, and when would be the proper time to introduce such control.

Sir, the answer is very simple. The prices of essential food supplies are determined not by what is done in Singapore but what happens in the Middle East, or what happens to the weather in Thailand, or in other areas, or in the wheat-growing areas in the United States. The prices which we have to pay are the prices which our importers have to pay in other markets to bring them to Singapore, so that the ability to control prices is certainly not within the hands of either the Singapore Government or even the consumers. Of course, consumers can control prices to a certain degree if they refuse to buy at prices which they regard as too high.

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. 3.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The amendments contained in this Bill are mainly designed to simplify the method and procedure for the revision of the registers of electors so as to facilitate the process of revision and enable revised registers to be prepared within a much shorter time than is at present possible. It has been found that the present method and procedure of revising the registers of electors causes unnecessary delay because of the requirement laid down by section 16 of the Parliamentary Elections Act that, apart from the revised registers, two additional lists referred to as "List A" (dealing with deletions from the registers) and "List B" (dealing with additions to the registers) must also be prepared. The preparation of both these Lists takes time but serves very little purpose as they are hardly known to the public, most of whom are merely interested in finding out whether their names are in the revised registers or not. Clause 10 of the Bill, therefore, dispenses with this requirement. It has also been found that the existing section 15 of the Act is unduly rigid as it imposes a mandatory requirement to revise the registers of electors every year even though there may not be any real need for such revision. Clause 9 of the Bill, therefore, seeks to amend section 15 so as to introduce greater flexibility by empowering the Minister to require the registers of electors to be revised from time to time but in any case not less than three years after the last general election. As a result of the shorter time that will be needed in preparing revised registers of electors, the cut-off date for the inclusion of names in the registers can be extended from 1st February at present to 1st July in any year in respect of which registers are prepared. Clause 2 of the Bill, which amends section 5 of the Act, seeks to do this. In the past it has also been the practice to amend section 10 of the Act whenever fresh registers of electors (as distinct from revised registers) are required to be prepared for a general election. This method is somewhat unsatisfactory and cumbersome, and clause 3 of the Bill now simply provides that, whenever a notification is made under section 8 of the Act to specify the names and boundaries of the electoral divisions for purposes of a general election, the Registration Officer will prepare fresh registers of electors for that year. The Bill contains one other important amendment which seeks to increase the amount required to be deposited by a candidate for election from $500 to $1,200. The amendment, which is contained in clause 14, will also empower the Minister to vary the amount of deposit up to a maximum of 10 per cent of the total allowances payable to a Member of Parliament in each year. This amendment is necessary because the present amount of deposit was fixed as long ago as 1954 and is therefore somewhat unrealistic by present day standards. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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

Clauses 1 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 15 -

There is a correction to be made: In page 6 (Form 3), to insert line 14 below line 15. This will be done. Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to prohibit smoking in public buses. I do not need to go into the whys and wherefores for prohibition on smoking in public places. Members are well aware of these. The Prohibition on Smoking in Certain Places Act came into operation on 1st October, 1970, followed by prohibition on smoking in cinemas, theatres and similar public places. More recently, smoking in public lifts was also prohibited in March this year. About 1.75 million bus trips are made by fare-paying passengers, including school children, in one day. It is therefore logical that the prohibition on smoking in public places should be extended to public buses to give these passengers a better atmosphere to travel in and protect them from the harmful effects of smoking by others. With the enactment of this Bill, the present division in public buses between smoking and non-smoking sections will be done away with. Each public bus will be wholly non-smoking. The prohibition on smoking in buses would apply to buses operating on scheduled routes while carrying fare-paying passengers. Excursion and private buses would not be included in the prohibition. The Bill empowers the conductor or a ticket inspector to warn passengers against smoking in buses. A passenger who disregards such warning may be asked to leave the bus. The conductor or ticket inspector may also seek the assistance of any police officer, public health auxiliary or other public officer authorised by the Commissioner of Public Health, to deal with a passenger who refuses to heed the warnings or leave the bus. Under the Bill, smoking in public buses would be an offence subject to arrest without warning. On conviction in Court, an offender would be liable to a fine of up to $500. 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. -[Dr Ang Kok Peng]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

There is a correction to be made: In page 2, line 5, to leave out "Act," and insert "Act;". This will be done. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill seeks to introduce certain amendments to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Chapter 15) in order to enable the Public Prosecutor to appeal against judgments of the High Court made in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. As the law now stands, the Public Prosecutor is only empowered to refer points of law to the Court of Criminal Appeal for the Appellate Court's review and, where a person has been acquitted by the High Court, only a declaratory judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal may be sought which will not have the effect of reversing the order. Furthermore, there can be no appeal by the Public Prosecutor in respect of sentence imposed. Whereas there are these restrictions on the Public Prosecutor, there are no corresponding restrictions on the accused person who, upon conviction by the High Court, is entitled as of right to take his case on appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal; and in every case where he is dissatisfied with the sort of punishment meted out on him by the Court, lodge an appeal against sentence. In order to correct this imbalance as it were, the changes contemplated by the Bill have been introduced. In practice, it is not envisaged that there would be many such appeals. Nevertheless, there is a need to allow the Public Prosecutor in any given case, a freer hand than the law now allows, so that he would be in the same position, not less nor more advantageous than counsel for the defence, in regard to exercising a discretion whether to appeal against an order of the High Court or not. The other two minor amendments in this Bill are being introduced in order to allow the President power to increase the number of Assistant Registrars in the High Court, as and when the need to do so arises. 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.

Enacting Clause -

There is a correction to be made: In page 1, line 1, after "Be", to insert "it". This will be done. Clauses 1 to 12 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

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." A new Building Control Division within the Public Works Department was established in February, 1972, to speed up the processing of building plans. However, the existing building control legislation is inadequate to meet our present requirements. The Bill therefore seeks to amend and consolidate the existing law and to repeal Part III of the Local Government Integration Act (Cap. 210) dealing with building activities. The general scheme of the Bill is similar to Part III of the Local Government Integration Act, but substantive changes have been made to simplify the law and to confer greater powers on the Building Authority (who is defined under the Bill as the Assistant Director (Building Control) of the P.W.D.) to deal with unauthorised building works and dangerous or dilapidated buildings. Penalties for offences in relation to unauthorised building works have been increased under the Bill, as the present penalties are considered inadequate. There are also other new provisions which will strengthen the hands of the Authority. I will only draw Members' attention to some of the more significant clauses. Clause 5 provides that no person shall commence or carry out any building works without the written permission of the Building Authority. This is not new. But "building works" is defined to include any kind of construction, site formation, repairs, demolition, alteration, addition and every kind of building operations. Provisions will be made in the Regulations to exempt minor repairs and alterations from the requirements of this clause. In respect of any unauthorised building works, the Authority is authorised under the Bill to charge sums not exceeding 50 times the prescribed fees, for the approval of plans to cover such unauthorised works. The existing maximum penalty is ten times the prescribed fee. Clause 6 which is substantially similar to the existing law confers on the Authority power to stop the construction of unauthorised building works and to demolish the structures and to recover the cost and expenses of demolition from the persons responsible. Clause 7 empowers the Authority to enter a building and seize all movable property found therein if it is satisfied that the building has been converted for any purpose or use other than the purpose or use for which the building has been approved. Such movable property may be confiscated or returned to the owner. This clause is designed to enable speedy and effective action to be taken against any unauthorised change of use of a building. Clause 13 of the Bill confers wide powers on the Authority to deal with any building which is dangerous or liable to become dangerous by fire, wind, rain, dilapidation, use, lack of fire escapes or any other cause. Among other things, the Authority may require the closure and the demolition of the whole or even part of such building. The provisions of this clause will enable the Authority to deal more effectively with dangerous buildings than the existing system under which a mandatory order will have to be obtained from a Magistrate's Court resulting in undue delay and protracted action. The Authority is also conferred powers by clause 19 of the Bill to confiscate any property seized or removed in the exercise of statutory powers. Such confiscated property may be returned to the owner within two weeks of the seizure or removal on such terms and conditions as the Authority thinks fit. Any property or thing which has been confiscated may be disposed of in such manner as the Minister may direct. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Sir, clause 11 of the Bill, which is not considered to be significant by the Minister, empowers the Building Authority to require the owner of a building to remove roofing made of inflammable materials, such as attap, by giving three months' or shorter period of notice. In the implementation of this particular section of the law, I do hope that the Department concerned will be both flexible and reasonable in their attitude, bearing in mind that the majority of people likely to be affected by this particular section are attap house dwellers in the lower income group. In view of the present high cost of building construction materials, these people may very well find three months too short a period to raise sufficient money to replace the attap roof with other suitable material. In cases of genuine financial hardship, I do hope that the Department will be prepared to grant a longer period for the work to be carried out. Another point that has occurred to me is that the existing procedure to obtain official permission to change the roof from attap to some other hardier material is somewhat involved, and in most cases it takes more than three months to obtain planning approval. So, for this clause 11 to be implemented, I presume that something will be done to simplify the procedure. In concluding, Sir, I do like to mention that I can fully appreciate the very good intention behind this particular clause of the Bill, which obviously aims at minimising the risk of fire spreading from house to house.

Sir, first, I would like to thank the Member for his kind remarks. We will certainly take his comments into consideration. If the Building Authority or the Assistant Director of Public Works Department is not flexible, there is always recourse for an appeal to the Minister.

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

3.47 p.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 9, to leave out "26 of this Act" and insert "27". This is a consequential renumbering due to the introduction of a new clause 14. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 12 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 9, line 12, after "such", to insert "investigation or". This would assure that the cost of such investigation could be recovered from the owner. Amendment agreed to. Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 9, line 39, after "he", to insert "had". This is to correct a grammatical error. Amendment agreed to. Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 15 to 23 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 24 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 12, line 12, after "Act", to insert "or any regulations made thereunder". Sir, this is for further additional clarification. Amendment agreed to. Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 26 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 13, after line 40, to insert - "(m) the control, regulation and supervision by registration, licensing or otherwise of premises used for any trade or purpose specified in section 14; (n) measures for the construction, installation and inspection of lifts and escalators; (o) the provision for air and open spaces within or between buildings;". Sir, this amendment is necessary because the functions of the Fire Brigade, as the Minister for Social Affairs pointed out earlier, are being transferred to the Building Control Division of the Public Works Department, and the measures under paragraphs (n) and (o), which I have just spelt out, are really additional measures taken following the Robinson fire and the recommendations made in respect of that fire. Amendment agreed to.

There are consequential amendments to be made to renumber paragraphs (m) to (q) of subclause I as paragraphs (p) to (t) respectively, consequent upon the addition of the three new paragraphs. This will be done. Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 27 and 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 14, line 31, to leave out "27" and insert "28". This and the following amendments are all consequential amendments. Amendment agreed to. Amendments made: In page 15, after line 26, to insert - "Section 77 and 78 Repeal.".-[Mr Barker]. In page 15, after line 33, to insert under the second column thereof - "Delete paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 appearing under the heading "Fire Brigade".".-[Mr Barker]. The Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause - `Dangerous (1) No premises shall, except in trades accordance with a licence from not to the Building Authority, be used be by any person for any of the carried following trades or purposes - on without licence. (a) tallow-melting and candle making; (b) making or storing matches, fireworks, carbide or any industrial gas; (c) making or storing charcoal; (d) a sawmill or place for depositing or storing coal, wood, timber, attap, kajang, thatching, grass, hay, straw or other flammable materials otherwise than for domestic use in that place; (e) a foundry or smithy; (f) the manufacture, storage, treatment, smoking or preparation of rubber, gutta pereha, jelutong and any other form of getah; (g) the manufacture, storage or treatment of cinematograph or other films; (h) a garage or place kept or used for repairing, painting, washing, storing, housing or parking motor vehicles or a place where a pump is maintained from which petrol or oil is supplied to motor vehicles, except a garage or place used in connection with a private dwelling-house and kept for private use only; and (i) such other trades or purposes as the Minister may, by notification in the Gazette, specify. (2) The Building Authority may at any time suspend or revoke any licence under subsection (I) without assigning any reason therefor. (3) Any person who uses or permits to be used any premises without a licence for any of the trades or purposes specified in subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence under this Act. (4) Where the Building Authority is satisfied that any premises have been or are being used in contravention of this section he may enter the premises and seize all movable property found therein.'.-[Mr Barker]. Brought up, and read the First time. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

This new clause is to be inserted in page 9, after line 22, immediately after clause 13, as clause 14. Existing clauses 14 to 28 will be renumbered as clauses 15 to 29 respectively. The new clause is to form Part IV of the Bill under the heading "PREMISES USED FOR DANGEROUS TRADES OR PURPOSES.". The existing Part IV will be renumbered as Part V. Appropriate amendments will also be made to the table of contents at pages i and ii, consequent upon the addition of the new clause. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Under section 56 (1) (c) of the Immigration Act, any person who engages in the business or trade of conveying to Singapore in or on any vessel, aircraft or vehicle, any person whom he knows or has reasonable grounds for believing is a prohibited immigrant, is guilty of an offence. This is an offence of trafficking in illegal immigrants. It is, however, extremely difficult to secure convictions under this provision because of the difficulty in adducing evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is engaged in the business of trafficking illegal immigrants to Singapore. Between 1970 and June 1973, of the 88 traffickers arrested only 35 were prosecuted in court. The other 53 were not charged because it was not possible to adduce the amount of evidence required for a conviction in court. In order to facilitate proof, clause 2 (c) of the Bill therefore seeks to introduce a legal presumption to provide that where, in any proceeding for an offence of trafficking, it is proved that the defendant has conveyed any prohibited illegal immigrant in or on any vessel, aircraft or vehicle, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the defendant is engaged in the business or trade of conveying to Singapore prohibited immigrants. The penalty for trafficking illegal immigrants under the existing law is imprisonment for a term of two years and a fine not exceeding $4,000. Further a person who enters Singapore illegally and any person who abets his entry or harbours or employs him is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both such imprisonment and fine. These penalties under the present law are manifestly inadequate especially for traffickers who prey on these illegal immigrants. As a result, the number of illegal immigrants arrested since 1969 has been increasing. The numbers arrested in 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 were 902, 1,128, 1,002 and 1,554 respectively. In the first half of this year, that is, from January to June 1973 alone, there were 1,086 illegal immigrants arrested. These figures, however, do not reveal the true position as there are most probably many more illegal immigrants who have up to-date remained undetected. Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of the Immigration (Amendment) Bill is to give more teeth to the law so that it will be a deterrent especially to traffickers and to those who abet another person to enter Singapore unlawfully, or to harbour or employ illegal immigrants. We must enhance penalties to ensure that it does not pay especially to traffic in illegal immigrants. Clause 2 (a) (i) of the Bill therefore seeks to increase the penalties for traffickers to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years and to a fine not exceeding $10,000 and to caning. Thus for the offence of trafficking, a minimum sentence and mandatory caning are introduced for the first time. The punishment for any person who enters unlawfully, or any person who abets his entry or harbours or employs him, is raised to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding $6,000 or to both such imprisonment and fine. This is provided for in clause 2 (a) (ii) of the Bill. At the Committee stage I shall be moving a further amendment to sections 2 and 49 of the Immigration Act. This amendment is to provide for the seizure, detention and forfeiture of vehicles used in the commission of any offence under the Immigration Act. This is necessary because under existing provisions, although there is power to seize, detain or forfeit vessels below 75 tons used in the commission of any offence under the Act, there are no similar provisions for vehicles. And traffickers have been known to use vehicles to convey illegal immigrants at the point of entry into Singapore to places of hiding and shelter. This amendment will be an additional deterrent against trafficking of illegal immigrants. 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 C/ma Sian Chin]. Bill considered in Committee.

4.09 p.m. Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause A - "Amendment Section 2 of the Immigration Act is of hereby amended by inserting immediately section 2 after the definition of "transportation company" appearing therein the following new definition: - ""vehicle" means any vehicle whether mechanically propelled or otherwise;".".-[Mr Chua Sian Chin]. Brought up, and read the First time. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

This new clause A is to be inserted immediately after clause 1. New Clause B - "Amendment Section 49 of the Immigration Act is of hereby amended - section 49 (a) by inserting immediately before the word "vessel" appearing in subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) thereof the words "vehicle or"; and (b) by inserting immediately before the word "vessels" appearing in the marginal note thereto the words "vehicles or".".-[Mr Chua Sian Chin]. Brought up, and read the First time. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

This new clause B is to be inserted immediately after new clause A. A consequential amendment will, therefore, be made to renumber clause 2 as clause 4. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Over the last decade there has been a steady increase of crimes in Singapore. In 1972, 20,208 seizable offences were committed in the Republic as against 15,752 in 1962. This represented an increase of 4,456 cases, or 22.1 per cent. The average number of seizable offences committed over the last ten years, that is, between 1962 and 1972, was 19,776. However, the number of seizable offences for the years 1970, 197] and 1972 were 19,835, 22,564 and 20,208 respectively. There are no signs that this upward trend has abated for, in the first six months of this year, the number of reported seizable offences was 10,611. If this rate continues, the total number of seizable offences for 1973 should be well over 20,000. Mr Speaker, Sir, robbery is one of the prevalent offences in the Republic. The number has increased sharply in recent years. In 1968 there were 1,067 cases of robbery. But within a period of three years this figure has doubled for in 1971 there were 2,146 cases and in 1972 there were 1,715 cases of robbery. But what is disturbing is the rapid increase of robbery cases in Singapore in which offensive weapons were used. These are known as armed robberies. In 1969 there were 473 cases of armed robbery out of a total of 1,009 robberies. This works out to 46.9 per cent. In 1970 the number increased to 821 Out of a total of 1,379 robberies. This works out to 59.5 per cent. There were 1,124 cases of armed robbery in 1971 out of a total of 2,146 robberies and in 1972 there were 939 cases of armed robbery out of a total of 1,715 robberies. The offensive weapons used in these robberies include firearms, knives, bearing scrapers or any sharp instruments. This clearly indicates that crimes of violence have become wide-spread in Singapore. What is even more alarming is that the number of robberies in which firearms have been used has also increased sharply. In 1971 there were 93 robberies in which firearms were used, and in 1972 firearms were used in 79 robberies. However, in the first half of 1973 alone there were 127 robberies where firearms were used. This is a staggering increase over last year's figure. This works out to about an average of 21 robberies a month, involving firearms. It has therefore become vital and urgent that something drastic should be done to curb this widespread use of firearms if peace and good order in our Republic is to be maintained. It is well known that those who use firearms in the commission of criminal offences when resisted do not hesitate to open fire to maim or to kill their victims. They have even less hesitation to open fire at the police when they are confronted. Some even shoot to kill in cold blood. Hon. Members may recall the incident in the middle of this year of the detective police constable who intervened in a dispute between a bus driver and a motorist at Katong. The motorist turned out to be one of the top 10 criminals in the wanted list. He pulled out his gun and in cold blood shot twice at the detective constable. He then relieved him of his service revolver and calmly walked away. This year the Police Force lost two of its best officers, shot dead in two separate shooting incidents. Early this year, the police also uncovered a big-time syndicate for the hire of firearms to thugs for use in the commission of criminal offences. In the face of this grave threat from this widespread use of firearms in the commission of criminal offences, it was clear that the Government had to find an effective deterrent to this growing menace. It was also clear that the law pertaining to the use of firearms in the commission of offences had to be amended to strengthen its provisions and to enhance punishment so that it could be an effective deterrent. Hence you have before you this Arms Offences Bill. In fact, to give hon. Members a preview of its deterrent effect, let me give the figures of the number of robberies involving the use of firearms after the Bill was introduced in August this year as compared with the figures previous to its introduction. For the three-month period of September to November 1973, that is, after the Bill was introduced and its provisions publicised, there were only 14 cases of robbery involving firearms. On the other hand, from January to August 1973, which is a period of eight months, there were a total of 155 robberies involving firearms. This sharp decline in the incidence of robberies involving the use of firearms after the Bill was introduced in August was quite dramatic. Clause 4 of the Arms Offences Bill makes it an offence punishable with death for any person who uses or attempts to use any arms with intent to maim or cause physical injury to the victim. "Arm" is defined to include firearm, air-gun, bomb or grenade, etc. Under the existing Arms Offences Act, which it is proposed to repeal, the court can either punish the offender with death or with imprisonment for life. Clause 5, which is a new provision, provides the same punishment for an accomplice of a person who, when committing or attempting to commit any offence, uses an arm provided the accomplice was present at the scene of the offence and may reasonably be presumed to have known that the person who had used the arm was carrying it or had it in his possession. This clause provides for joint liability on accomplices without the need to prove common intention on their part to use the arm which would otherwise be necessary if sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code arc to be invoked. Clause 6 provides as penalties death or imprisonment for life plus caning for any person trafficking in arms. Any person proved to be in unlawful possession of more than two arms shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to be trafficking in arms. This is a new provision. At present persons trafficking in arms are only heavily fined or imprisoned for possession of arms. Such punishment is manifestly inadequate. Clause 7 seeks to make a person, who consorts with or is found in the company of another person who is unlawfully carrying or is in unlawful possession of any arm, guilty of an offence and liable to the same punishment as the person with whom he was consorting or in whose company he was found, if the circumstances raise a reasonable presumption that he knew that such other person was carrying or had in his possession such arm. This is another new provision. It is similar in nature to clause 5 and provides for joint liability on accomplices. Clause 8 proposes penalties for exhibiting any imitation arm in a manner likely to put any person in fear of death or hurt when committing or attempting to commit or abetting the commission of any scheduled offence. This new provision is necessary as imitation arms are nowadays so well made that unless they are closely examined, it is quite impossible to distinguish them from the genuine ones. The degree of intimidation on the victim is therefore equally grave. Clause 9 seeks to make the occupier of any premises in which any arm is found guilty of possession of such arm unless he proves that some other person was in possession of it or that he had no knowledge or reasonable means of knowing that such arm was in the premises and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such arm being kept in his premises. This is also a new provision. Mr Speaker, Sir, caning is made mandatory in respect of all offences except in cases where the offence is punishable with death. In conclusion, as I have stated in a speech before, in our system of criminal justice the raison d'etre of it is that criminal elements are detected and apprehended and through a combination of punitive and rehabilitative measures they are returned to society in a condition whereby it is hoped they are more amenable to abiding by the social norms and restraints necessary for the existence of organised society. This work of ensuring justice is performed by three distinct agencies. They are the police, the courts and the prisons. Any inadequacy or weakness on the part of any one of the agencies must necessarily jeopardise the objective of the entire system. As far as the courts are concerned, the sentences that they impose must be adequate so as not only to act as a deterrent to repeat offenders but also to deter others as well. This is particularly important in cases of serious crimes and crimes of violence. In order to ensure this, the relevant laws where necessary must and will be amended. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.28 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. I think the Minister has given us a very detailed but extremely shocking account of the rising crime rate in this country. I personally believe that gangsters, hooligans and thugs who resort to violence and extreme methods in their criminal activities must be tried and punished by sentences no less than that with which they inflict their victims. To them I think the extreme punishment is something which they will probably understand. Anything less than that will not be effective. I am glad of the revelation by the Minister that over the last three months some beneficial results have been noticed. I take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, Sir, to express my support for the Bill and, secondly, to congratulate the police for the excellent work which we read every now and then in the recent past. I am also disturbed by the fact that to really seek a total eradication of such crimes in Singapore, we must have maximum co-operation from the people. We do know of occasions when policemen have been shot dead at point-blank in the presence of members of the public and yet they do not willingly come forward in spite of announcements in the press. Sir, I think we must at the same time encourage people to come forward in a more public spirited manner and unless and until they give the police this maximum co-operation, whatever Bills we introduce in Parliament will not bring about the desired results. Sir, I beg to support the Bill. 4.32 p.m.

Sir, firstly, I would like to thank the Member for Kim Seng for his ardent support of the Bill. Secondly, I cannot agree more with the Member when he says that whatever Bills we pass and even whatever action the police take and however efficiently they do their job, the prevention and reduction of the crime rate cannot be achieved until and unless we have maximum co-operation from all members of the public. As far as the Police are concerned, they have been holding "Police Week" yearly to get co-operation from the public. Next year, as some Members are aware, we will be launching a nation-wide campaign called "Keep Singapore Crime Free", and I hope that Members of Parliament, community leaders and members of the public will join in the campaign to rouse the conscience of the public to come out in support of whatever action is taken to suppress crime and criminal acts.

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 Chua Sian Chin]. Bill considered in Committee.

4.36 p.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 - Amendment made: In page 2, line 7, to leave out "traffick" and insert "trafficking". -[Mr Chua Sian Chin]. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 - Amendment made: In page 3, line 10, to leave out "also" and insert "in any event". -[Mr Chua Sian Chin]. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 - Amendment made: In page 3, line 12, to leave out "Any" and insert - " Subject to any exception referred to Cap. 103. in Chapter IV of the Penal Code which may be applicable, any". -[Mr Chua Sian Chin]. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 - Amendment made: In page 3, line 30, after "shall", to insert ", until the contrary is proved,".-[Mr Chua Sian Chin]. Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 7 to 13 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In moving the Arms Offences Bill, I explained the need to introduce legislation to stop the increasing use of firearms in the commission of crime. I also spoke of the urgent need to make use of the element of deterrence to help cut down crime, especially crimes of violence in Singapore. However, besides firearms, other offensive weapons are also being used in the commission of crime, particularly robberies. Armed with offensive weapons like knives, bearing scrapers or other sharp objects, the robbers would waylay their victims in some quiet street or backlane, or hold them up in their premises, rob them and disappear quickly. Most victims invariably do not resist because they fear injury or being killed. It is well known that these thugs who carry offensive weapons will not hesitate when resisted to cause grievous hurt to their victims. Our records show that these crimes of violence whether they be armed robbery occurring in the streets, or in taxis, or extortions, intimidations and gang clashes by secret society thugs are on the increase. Hon. Members will remember that not too long ago an example of a blatantly inhuman act was perpetrated by thugs on a boy of 14 years when he was set fire upon after kerosene was poured on him. I understand that this boy is now emasculated and his whole appearance is quite hideous. Our law-abiding members of the public have to be protected from this growing threat of brutal assaults and grievous hurt being inflicted upon them apart from being robbed by these violent thugs. The Police have the responsibility of ensuring peace and good order of our Republic as well as the personal safety of our citizens. However, in discharging these duties, the Police have often to face dangers of attack and assault from violent criminals. These thugs have no hesitation in using force and violence against the Police when confronted or in resisting arrest. Members may recall the brutal assault on two Police constables by a mob in a firecracker incident in February last year. The constables were discharging their duty to enforce the firecracker ban. One of them was so brutally assaulted and sustained such serious injuries that he now exists almost as a "living vegetable". Since 1972, a total of 31 Police officers were assaulted by thugs in the course of their duties. Of these, eight Police officers (or 25.7 per cent) were injured or killed by the use of offensive weapons or firearms. Thus apart from our law-abiding members of the public, our law enforcement officers who undertake risks in discharging their duties must also be protected from being brutally assaulted by thugs. There is an urgent need to enhance the penalties for the various offences under the Penal Code so that they will act as a deterrent to offenders from maiming or inflicting hurt on any person whether he is a member of the public or any public officer who is discharging his duty. Clause 2 of the Bill proposes to increase the maximum punishment for rioting with violence from two years to five years, and caning is made mandatory. Clause 3 further provides that if any arms or offensive weapons are used which are likely to cause death, this offence will be made punishable with imprisonment of seven years and caning, instead of three years and/or a fine presently provided in section 148 of the Penal Code. Under this Bill any person found guilty of obstructing a public servant from discharging his duties with intimidation or assault will be punished with imprisonment of up to six years, instead of three years as presently provided in section 152 of the Penal Code. In addition, if the offender inflicts hurt to prevent a public servant from carrying out his duties, he will be punished with imprisonment of up to five years, instead of three years presently provided under section 332 of the Penal Code. He is also liable to be caned for this offence. If the public servant sustains grievous hurt, then the offender will be punished with imprisonment of up to 10 years in addition to caning. Another important amendment involves offences against the person. Under clause 7 of the Bill, any person who voluntarily causes hurt to another person by the use of dangerous weapons or any corrosive substance likely to cause death will be imprisoned up to five years, instead of three years. If this offence results in grievous hurt to the person, under clause 8 of the Bill he is liable to imprisonment for seven years and caning as well. The Bill also seeks to make caning mandatory for robbery and robbery with hurt. Under clauses 14 to 16 of the Bill these offences are punishable with caning of not less than four strokes to not less than six strokes in addition to the imprisonment term already provided in the Penal Code. These offences will no longer be punishable by imposition of a fine. In a robbery, if an offender is armed or uses any deadly weapon to cause grievous hurt or attempt to cause death to any person, the punishment for this offence is increased under clause 19 of the Bill by caning with not less than 10 strokes in addition to the term of imprisonment already provided under the relevant section of the Penal Code. The penalties for gang robbery are also enhanced. In the Bill any person who commits gang robbery will be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term of up to 10 years. In addition he is liable to be caned with not less than six strokes of the rotan. The provision of fining has also been deleted for this offence. Where murder is committed in the course of a gang robbery, every one of its members will be punished with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of up to 10 years. However, if the punishment is other than death, clause 18 of the Bill provides that they be caned with not less than 10 strokes, instead of imposition of a fine as provided in section 396 of the Penal Code. Sections 401 and 402 of the Penal Code, which provide punishment for persons who habitually commit gang robbery or theft, are amended to provide for mandatory caning in addition to imprisonment. The provision of fining is also removed for these offences. The punishment for receiving stolen property is also increased. In the Bill, whoever is guilty of this offence is liable to be imprisoned for five years instead of three years as provided in section 411 of the Penal Code. In addition he may be fined for this offence. 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 Chua Sian Chin]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." It is necessary to amend the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act to provide for enhanced penalties for offences under this Act in view of the increase in gang violence and the widespread use of gangland weapons in the commission of crime. Further by enhancing the penalties for arms offences, as set out in the Arms Offences Bill, more criminals may now turn to the use of offensive weapons other than firearms and corrosive and explosive substances in the commission of offences. Clause 2 of the Bill proposes to make caning mandatory where a person is found guilty of possessing any corrosive substances or offensive weapons in circumstances which raise a reasonable presumption that he intends to use these for causing hurt to another person. The offender will be punished with imprisonment of up to 10 years in addition to caning of not less than six strokes for this offence. Where a person is found guilty of using any corrosive substance or offensive weapon or any explosive substance to cause hurt against another person, clause 3 of this Bill proposes that he be caned with not less than six strokes in addition to life imprisonment which is already provided for this offence. The Bill also proposes to increase the punishment for any offender who has in his possession or under his control or manufactures, sells or hires or lends or gives to any other person any scheduled weapon. Any person on conviction of this offence will be punished with imprisonment of up to five years and caned with not less than six strokes, instead of three years and/or a fine not exceeding $3,000 as provided under subsection (1) of section 7 of the existing Act. The punishment for a repeat offender is also increased by imprisonment for a term varying from two to eight years in addition to caning of not less than six strokes, instead of an imprisonment term of one to seven years as presently provided in the existing Act. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 4.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In the last Budget address, I mentioned that officers in my Ministry were exploring the possibility of restructuring subheads in the Annual Estimates with the aim of streamlining and rationalising their presentation. Since then, proposals for a new format for the Annual Estimates have been developed by my officials and these proposals have been accepted by the Estimates Committee of Parliament. It is necessary now to amend section 17 of the Financial Procedure Act to enable a new format to be adopted for the Estimates of Expenditure for the next financial year. In the new format all subheads in the Main Estimates will be codified to enable data on expenditure to be processed with the use of computers. The traditional sub-divisions of Personal Emoluments (PE), Other Charges, Annually Recurrent (OCAR) and Other Charges, Special Expenditure (OCSE) will be discarded. Instead, there will be two new categories, namely Expenditure on Manpower (EOM) and Other Operating Expenditure (OOE). This arrangement will enable direct manpower costs to be conveniently grouped. Also, the timescale posts are presented in a summarised way according to their Division of service so that the picture would not be blurred by excessive details. The details, if required, are available in a separate Establishment List. In accordance with the new subsection (3) of section 17 of the Financial Procedure Act, this list will be laid before Parliament each year. 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 Third Reading read. 5.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to give notice that I wish to propose amendments to clause 18 of the Bill. Typed copies of the Notice handed in and distributed to Members.

The Minister has given notice in respect of clause 18, which has been circulated to Members. Under Standing Orders, the Bill accordingly stands recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of clause 18. Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir.

The requisite notice of the amendments has not been given. The amendments are subject to the Speaker's consent and the general assent of Members present to dispense with notice under Standing Order 33. I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that notice of the amendments proposed to be moved be dispensed with? Hon. Members indicated assent. Bill considered in Committee.

5.02 p.m. Clause 18 - Amendments made: In page 10, line 25, to leave out "-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 10, to leave out from line 39 to line 4 in page 11. Sir, with the introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill which was read for the first time today, it is necessary to effect this amendment and the earlier amendments, as provision for pegging of land values for purposes of compulsory acquisition of land has already been made in clause 7 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, which will be taken through its Second and Third Reading stages at the next sitting of Parliament. These are the reasons for the amendments which I have just moved, Sir. Amendment agreed to. Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir,I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Members of the House will recall that this Bill was committed to a Select Committee by a resolution of Parliament passed on the 26th of July, 1973. Two written representations were received, from the Port of Singapore Authority and the Singapore Institute of Surveyors, and the Select Committee heard oral evidence from four of the representors. The Committee's Report was presented on the 8th of October, 1973 as Paper Parl. 2 of 1973. Sir, the Bill as now tabled before the House incorporates the recommendations of the Select Committee. The Committee held three meetings and has recommended, inter alia, the following amendments to the Bills:-

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

5.09 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name as it stands in the Order Paper. * The motion reads as follows: `That this Parliament, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Nature Reserves Act (Chapter 295), resolves that paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the said Act be deleted.' The motion deals with the Kranji Forest Reserve, Lot 162-5 Mukim XIII, Sembawang, which has been sub divided into two Lots: -

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Nature Reserves Act (Chapter 295), resolves that paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the said Act be deleted.

5.11 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move the motion+ standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. + The motion reads as follows: `That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of those portions of foreshore and sea-bed at Ulu Pandan containing a total area of approximately 41 acres as shown coloured purple and edged in broken red and blue lines on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 7/73" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.' Sir, you will recall that at its sitting on 19th October, 1971, this House approved the reclamation of about 371.8 acres of the foreshore and seabed at Ulu Pandan shown coloured green and yellow on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 7/73", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. This reclamation, which has since been completed except for the portion shown coloured yellow and hatched red on the plan, was in line with the development layout plan approved by the Master Plan Committee for the integral development of the foreshores and adjoining land as an extension of the Jurong Industrial Estate. The approved limit of the reclamation of the foreshore line east of Caltex's properties (shown coloured pink), comprising about 182 acres and shown coloured yellow and edged in blue broken lines on the plan, provides for the creation of a sizable basin of water. However, on further investigation, it has been found that this basin (shown coloured purple on the plan) is liable to siltation and is therefore unsuitable for shipping. On the advice and with the concurrence of the Port of Singapore Authority, it is therefore proposed to realign the original southern limit of the reclamation by filling up the basin and cutting off part of the projection as shown coloured yellow and hatched red on the plan, resulting in a new southern limit of the reclamation as shown edged in red broken lines. The realignment of the reclamation limit necessitates the reclamation of about 41 acres of the foreshore shown coloured purple on the plan. The approval of the House is now sought for this reclamation which will be undertaken by the Jurong Town Corporation, as agent of the Government, at an estimated cost of $2.5 million. Earth from the nearby hills will be utilised as fill for this reclamation. On completion, the reclaimed land will be proclaimed as State land and alienated to the Corporation on terms and conditions to be agreed with the Commissioner of Lands. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of those portions of foreshore and seabed at Ulu Pandan containing a total area of approximately 41 acres as shown coloured purple and edged in broken red and blue lines on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 7/73" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.

5.16 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. * The motion reads as follows: `That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves: -

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves : -

5.21 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name, as it appears on the Order Paper. * The motion reads as follows: `That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of those portions of the foreshores and seabed off Pulau Hantu Besar and Pulau Hantu Kechil (also known as the Pulau Hantu Twins), Pulau Subar Darat and Pulau Subar Laut (also known as the Sisters Islands) containing a total area of approximately 32.3 acres as shown coloured pink on the plans marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 12/73 AND LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 13 / 73", which are deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.' Sir, the Port of Singapore Authority is presently conducting preliminary studies on the development of seaward recreational facilities for the benefit of our citizens as well as tourists. Broadly, the development consists of the reclamation of land on some of the islands around Singapore and the provision of electricity and water, washing and bathing facilities and regular and frequent fast ferry services between the mainland and the islands. For a start, the Authority proposes to develop Pulau Hantu (Besar and Kechil) and Pulau Subar Laut and Subar Darat (Sisters Islands) and Coney Island. For this purpose, it is now proposed to reclaim a total area of approximately 32.3 acres of the fore-shores at Pulau Hantu (Besar and Kechil) and Pulau Subar Laut and Subar Darat (Sisters Islands) as shown coloured pink on the plans marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 12/73" and "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 13/73" respectively, copies of which are displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you are interested, I have the plan here. In fact, I have all the plans here. Plans handed in to the Clerk.

Fill for the reclamation will be obtained from dredging the nearby navigation channels. The cost of the reclamation, including foreshore protection, estimated at $4.4 million will be borne by the Authority. A further sum of $6.2 million will be expended on infrastructure and recreational facilities at these islands. This reclamation, together with the reclamation at Coney Island which will be carried out soon and at other islands currently under study by the Authority, will be spread out over the next five years. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of those portions of the foreshores and seabed off Pulau Hantu Besar and Pulau Hantu Kechil (also known as the Pulau Hantu Twins), Pulau Subar Darat and Pulau Subar Laut (also known as the Sisters Islands) containing a total area of approximately 32.3 acres as shown coloured pink on the plans marked `LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 12/73 AND LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 13/73", which are deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.

5.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name, as it appears on the Order Paper. * The motion reads as follows: `That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves: -

The Swimming Lagoon, shown coloured blue and yellow on the same plan, which has been developed to provide a major tropical beach and waterfront recreational area for the use not only of tourists but also the residents of Singapore. The Golf Course Island which was completed in March 1971 necessitated the reclamation of about 1.9 acres of the foreshore and approval for this reclamation was given under the proviso to section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Cap. 270). The development of the Swimming Lagoon which is expected to be completed at the end of this year involves the dredging and reclamation of about 27.7 acres off Sentosa Island and approval of the House for this reclamation is now being sought. It is also proposed to reclaim Kuching Creek Estuary shown coloured green on the plan for the purpose of constructing a Ferry Terminal and Plaza Building. The Port of Singapore Authority will on behalf of the Corporation undertake the reclamation works which are expected to be completed in a year's time at an estimated cost of $900,000. Fill for this reclamation will be obtained from surplus material from the PSA's own dredging operations. The cost of constructing the Ferry Terminal and Plaza Building including the cost of ferry boats is estimated at $4.5 million. The building which will incorporate ticketing offices and Information Centre, medical facilities, locker rooms and display cases, shops, snack bar and a restaurant are expected to be completed in two years' time after the reclamation of Kuching Creek. On completion, the reclaimed land will be proclaimed as State land and alienated to the Sentosa Development Corporation on terms and conditions to be agreed with the Commissioner of Lands. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves:-

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to Tuesday, 18th December, 1973."-[Mr Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes past Five o'clock p.m. to Tuesday, 18th December, 1973.