Hansard, 1974-03-27

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Before I elaborate on the provisions of this Bill, may I give a brief summary of the background? Prior to April, 1972, the Telecommunications Department was a Government department providing external telecommunication services while the Singapore Telephone Board was a Statutory organisation providing domestic telephone services. With very high rates of growth and fast changing technology in communications, it was clear that radical changes in the organisation and management were required to cope with the developments and challenges in the years ahead. An expert from the International Telecommunications Union was therefore invited to advise the Ministry on the reorganisation of the telecommunication services and his recommendation was that the Telecommunications Department should be converted into a statutory organisation. This recommendation was accepted and implemented on 1st April, 1972, with the Telecommunications Department becoming a statutory body known as the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore (TAS). This Bill seeks to provide for the second stage of reorganisation, namely, the merger of the Singapore Telephone Board with the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore into a single organisation to be known as the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore (new TAS), i.e, both domestic and external telecommunications are to work as one and not as two separate entities. I will now summarise the main features of this Bill. The Bill essentially re-enacts the provisions of the Singapore Telephone Board Act and the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore Act, 1972, both of which will be repealed. The new TAS shall consist of a Chairman, a General Manager and not less than five and not more than seven other members all of whom shall be appointed by the Minister. The new TAS shall have the exclusive privilege of operating telecommunication services in the Republic and, in addition to the functions of the existing TAS, the new TAS will also perform the functions of the STB. There are pro, visions for the appointment of staff and the appointment of a General Manager. The General Manager is to be appointed by the TAS with the approval of the Minister and will be chief executive of the organisation. The persons presently employed by the STB or TAS shall be transferred to the service of the new TAS on the same terms. The new TAS will be empowered to raise funds by the issue of stocks or loans from banks and to levy charges, rates and fees. The new TAS will acquire the existing assets and liabilities of the STB and TAS. The new TAS has power to acquire land and to enter upon land for the purpose of its installations, and compensation is payable for the exercise of such powers. The accounts of the new TAS shall he audited by the Auditor-General or by an auditor appointed by the Minister in consultation with the Auditor-General. The audited accounts as well as the annual report shall be presented to Parliament. The new TAS will be commanding substantial manpower of over 5,000 staff and financial resources exceeding $150 million in annual gross revenue. With such resources and an integrated organisation, we can expect more vigorous development, increase in efficiency and higher quality of telecommunication services. To ensure that our Republic will continue to be a leading communication centre, the new TAS will continually keep abreast of latest technological innovations and developments. Hon. Members may wish to note that a five-year development programme costing more than $560 million has already been prepared for implementation by the new TAS. Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to add that all necessary steps have been taken to ensure that the merger will proceed as smoothly as possible, and an extensive internal reorganisation has already been put into effect. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are instances where occupants of offices and commercial buildings which are ready for occupation have to wait for months for the provision of telephone services. Clause 6 of the Bill says that it shall be the function and duty of the Authority to provide, operate and maintain a good and sufficient telecommunication service, and also to promote the economic development of the telecommunication service in accordance with public demand. I also note that clause 6 (1) (f) provides for the further advancement of telecommunication technology and the development of telecommunication in Singapore in co-operation with the broadcasting and television authority and tertiary technical institutions. I would like to see closer co-ordination and also streamlining of the administrative structure of the Authority to ensure that this long wait for telephone services is avoided. As we know, in the past the reasons usually given to applicants for the long wait are either there are no spare lines available or there is a shortage of equipment. Because of this, commercial premises without telephone services are, therefore, in many cases left unoccupied for months because they are unsuitable for business operations although they are certified fit for occupation in every respect. I am sure the Minister will agree that this state of affairs is obviously undesirable because it means a waste of usable facilities and also a restriction of commercial activities. I would, therefore, like to see this part of the administrative structure streamlined in the new Authority.

Sir, I would like to assure the hon. Member for Kim Keat that all efforts will be exerted towards closer co-ordination between the various parties concerned to ensure speedy installation of the necessary telephone services. But I would like the Member to note that the increase in the number of telephones installed has been averaging at about 14 per cent per annum. This is a very high rate of growth compared with the world average of about 8 per cent. So it is sometimes difficult to meet immediate demands and some delay is unavoidable.

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: reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Ministry of the Environment is now responsible for administering the Environmental Public Health Act (Cap. 155). Prior to the setting up of this Ministry, the Act was administered by the Ministry of Health, and the Commissioner of Public Health was responsible for its administration subject to the supervision of the Public Health Authority established under section 3 of the Act. The Public Health Authority comprises the Director of Medical Services and the Deputy Director of Medical Services of the Public Health Division, Ministry of Health. Both these offices are no longer directly concerned with the administration of the Act. It is, therefore, necessary to delete all references to "the Authority" in the Act and for the Commissioner of Public Health to be responsible for the administration of the Act subject to the directions of the Minister for the Environment. The opportunity is also taken to make other amendments to the Act which have become necessary. Our policy is to resite street hawkers into premises including eating establishments. The powers of the Commissioner should be extended to the control of hawkers within these establishments, i.e, hawkers and stalls in coffee shops including those in HDB estates will he licensed directly. Provision is also made for ticketing of unlicensed stallholders and seizure of stalls, appliances and goods belonging to unlicensed stall-holders in the eating establishments. The present definition of "premises" in the Act requires amendment to enable prosecution of unlicensed hawkers of any goods, including food and drinks, who operate in public places like parks and car parks. To provide for more effective control of food handlers in food establishments and at food stalls, the Act requires amendment to permit ticketing of offenders. Inadequate capacity, inept operation, poor maintenance and consequent breakdown of air-conditioning plants in places frequented by the public such as hotels, cinemas, offices, shopping complexes and restaurants pose a public health problem. The Commissioner of Public Health should, therefore, be empowered to require owners, occupiers or licensees of such buildings to take necessary measures to ensure that the air-conditioning system is functioning properly. The definition of "public health auxiliary" requires amendment consequential to the redesignation of the post of Public Health Assistants which is now titled Assistant Public Health Inspectors. It is also proposed to delete repetitions of the definition of "public health officer" in several sections of the Act and to insert a single definition in section 2 of the Act which will apply throughout the Act. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 2.51 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Printing Presses Act was originally enacted in 1920. Various amendments, as were found necessary have, since then, been made to the Act, the last one being in 1970. Experience has, however, shown that the provisions of the Act are still inadequate, particularly in relation to the sections concerning the publication of newspapers. Although a permit is still required for the printing or publication of a newspaper, recent events have shown that it is possible for foreign elements to gain control of our newspapers, and use them for their own ends against our national interest. There is, therefore, need to further amend and update this Act to meet present-day requirements. Under the provisions of the existing Act, as it stands today, foreign interests could obtain control of any newspaper printed and published in Singapore. This is obviously an unhealthy situation. In May, 1971, for example, the "Eastern Sun", an English language newspaper closed down voluntarily, following exposure by the Government of its having received subventions amounting to nearly HK$8 million from a Communist intelligence agency in Hong-kong. The "Singapore Herald", another English language newspaper, which was also financed with funds from foreign sources, conducted a campaign to mis- lead the people of Singapore especially the English-educated. The Government had, therefore, in 1971, to withdraw its publication permit. We would be failing in our duty and responsibility to the people of Singapore, if we do not protect our citizens from the manipulations of subversive or hostile elements, operating through our newspapers. Although newspapers are commercial organisations, they have a special responsibility to the society they cater for. They have a duty to always bear in mind their social and political obligations because, as a medium of communication, their influence can be crucial. Singapore, therefore, cannot allow foreign control of any of its newspapers, that is to say, those overseas who may seek to manipulate or influence public opinion through this media. We cannot afford to have "black operations" mounted against us. The intention of the Bill before us is, therefore, to make a substantial change of the Printing Presses Act to ensure that newspapers are not used as instruments of subversion. Precaution must be taken to prevent the newspaper from being used to poison the minds of its readers by reporting news in a biased way or to reproduce propaganda material "lifted" or cut out from newspapers controlled by foreign countries. But, while it is necessary to ensure that control of our newspapers remain in the hands of our citizens, the Government also does not wish to upset the commercial operations of newspaper companies, or intervene in the market forces determining the value of their shares. We certainly do not want to get involved in the day-to-day running of newspapers. Management will be free to operate the newspapers as commercial enterprises, provided they ensure that there is no manipulation by foreign elements and that no attempt is made by them, or through their proxies, to glorify undesirable viewpoints and philosophies. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is against this backdrop that I have introduced the Newspaper and Printing Presses Bill. The Bill seeks to re-enact, with additions or amendments, certain provisions of the Printing Presses Act (Chapter 258). I do not propose to take the House through the entire Bill, clause by clause, as many of the provisions are re-enactments of the existing Act. I would like, however, to touch on some of the salient points of the Bill. Permits will still be required for the printing and publication of newspapers, but all newspaper companies will have to go public, unless there is some special difficulty, perhaps on account of size in going public. In such cases, the Minister will be empowered to grant special exemptions. All newspapers will have to be locally managed; the members of the Board of Management will have to be Singapore citizens. In a newspaper company, there will be two classes of shares, namely, management shares and ordinary shares. There is, no restriction to the ownership of ordinary shares; however, the issue and transfer of management shares must have the approval of the Minister, and such approval will only be given to citizens of Singapore, or to such corporations which have been granted approval by the Minister. This arrangement is necessary, since the total voting rights of the management shares is greater than that of the ordinary shares. All foreign investments injected into the newspaper must have the approval of the Minister; this is to ensure that the Government is not kept in the dark as regards the real ownership of capital of newspapers. In this way, we will be able to ensure that the management of the newspapers will always be in the hands of our citizens, and the policies also determined by our citizens. It will be appreciated that ample notice has been given to the newspapers of the Government's intention to make major Singapore newspapers to go public - in fact, that indication was given as early as January last year. However, in order to ensure that there will be adequate opportunity for all interested parties to air their views and make such representation as they might deem necessary, the Government has decided to send this Bill to a Select Committee. As I mentioned earlier, it is not the intention of Government to interfere unduly in the affairs of the Press. The sole purpose is to safeguard our national interest and the well-being of our citizens. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the main provisions of the Bill to make it law that all Singapore citizens can have a right to fashion the policy of the newspaper. This is in line with the argument that if one's survival depends on keeping the boat on an even keel as it charts its way through unpredictable seas, then it is in the interest of that person not to provoke any kind of a disequilibrium of the boat. In the Singapore context, Sir, a responsible newspaper is a critical factor in the well-being of the nation. The newspaper provides information upon which members of our society conduct intense communication among themselves, between themselves and the Government, form impressions, construct convictions and make decisions. It is imperative, therefore, as far as is reasonably possible and democratically feasible, that news and information offered by the newspaper are responsible news resulting from the responsible policies of the management comprising responsible citizens of Singapore, whose stakes are in this country and in this country only. In a world of super powers, super nationalisms and monolithic commercial organisations, Sir, which contend for power and profit, Singapore is a consideration in their strategy of operations, and in my view the sooner we rise up to this fact, the sooner will we begin to ensure our own national security. I also support, Sir, the committal of this Bill to Select Committee.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the whole intention of this Bill may be summed up in one sentence, that is, in future newspapers in Singapore will only be run by Singapore citizens with the permission of the Minister in charge. As the Bill stands, the whole spirit of the Bill lies in Part III, which gives the Minister very extensive powers, particularly in clause 9. The appointment of directors on the board must be approved by the Minister. But the Bill does not provide how any citizen of Singapore can be approved by the Minister to be a holder of management shares. It does not say how an application is to be made, whether it should be on a specified form or whether it is to be by letter. On the question of funds, of course, we can prevent a local newspaper from obtaining foreign sources of finance. But we cannot control the content of the newspapers, and therefore we may not prevent incidents similar to what had happened before, and certain undesirable events may happen again. We have seen incidents in Sri Lanka which were mainly due to newspaper influences. Now, there are embassies and consulates in our midst, and they can pay substantial amounts on advertisements to publicise through the newspapers any article of a political content, such as how great a certain political machinery or thought is, what it has produced, and what a great personage the ruler is, etc. This is very dangerous. Once we have diplomatic relations with more countries, more embassies and consulates will be set up in Singapore, and every one of them can by paying advertisement charges publicise in our local newspapers as to how great are their great political leaders, how good are their political systems, and so on. Under such circumstances, with a multi-racial setup as ours, would it be good for Singapore? They can carry across their messages through such advertisements and publicity in our newspapers. Even underground agencies or undesirable elements can also make use of the newspapers to convey their message if they want to. Just now the Minister has said in his speech that the intention of the Bill is to ensure that newspapers in Singapore will in future be under the control of Singapore citizens, but it also does not wish to upset the commercial operations of newspaper companies. But a commercial establishment does not usually care very much about politics, social conscience or any other thing except profits. So a newspaper can publicise articles to suit some people with ulterior motive. I would now refer to clause 11 of Part III. This applies only to any newspaper published at intervals not exceeding one week. In other words, if a newspaper is published less than once a week, say, every eight days, once a month or longer, such a newspaper can be exempted from the provisions of this Part. If that is the case, then the purpose of this Bill may be defeated. So I hope this aspect of the Bill will be well considered by the Select Committee. About the management shares being in the hands of our citizens, as I have pointed out, certain publicity can still go through the newspaper, and they may not effectively exercise their control through the means as provided. Now there is the suggestion of establishing a Press Council, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs has spoken about it. Perhaps this Press Council can provide some guidance for the newspapers. However, with all these provisions, anybody, including a journalist or a citizen, if he wants to, can still exercise subversive influence through the newspaper. So I hope the Select Committee can look into this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support, in principle, the introduction of this Bill. I think it is unquestionable that the spirit and intention of the Bill is good. However, I would just like to add my own comments on what I feel are the important points. There are provisions in this Bill for reference to be made to the Minister, and giving the Minister certain powers to decide. This is, I am sure, a good point. But what I would caution as a possible reaction is that a decision of the Minister might be interpreted as partial or biased at times. I do not wish to question the Minister on this point, but I am just suggesting that the number of references or provisions allowing reference to the Minister may by itself create a problem and misinterpretation. I think it is important for us to realise that in Singapore today we have a great desire and a need for a constructive and responsible press. This is one laudable objective. The second is that we have to ensure and provide for adequate measures to prevent subversive activities or subversion in Singapore through the mass media. To meet this end, this Bill is appropriate. I would like to point out that there is a possible side effect of this Bill. But it is my hope that the measures contained in the Bill will not lead to a curbing of genuine public expression to the extent of stifling a healthy debate on issues of national and international interest through the mass media. I think this point has to be taken very seriously and I am sure that the Hon. Minister has this point in mind when he decided to commit this Bill to a public hearing. I give him my whole-hearted support. With these comments and reservation, I wish to express once again my support for the Newspaper and Printing Presses Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support this Bill. In my view, this Bill is one way to deal with the entry of "devils" and "demons" from foreign countries, as our cultural ballast is too weak at the moment. We can still see newspapers glorifying the fads and fetishes of the West, emphasising individualism. While some girls wear mini-skirts to show off their thighs without any sense of shame, others wear the maxis which are long enough to drag along the road, without realising that their skirts will be dirtied. All these fads and fetishes and fashions have been played up and glorified through the medium of the newspapers. On the other hand, we can also see the relics of conservatism and feudalistic colours from the East. I do not know why the newspapers should always publish full-page advertisements in glorification of the dead in the oriental tradition. I do not know the actual meaning behind all this. If this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it will perpetuate the contradictions, anomalies and even anachronisms in Singapore. All these anachronisms and contradictions can be made use of and exploited by ambitious elements from foreign sources, as pointed out by the Minister when he said that there was an attempt at exploitation of newspapers through black operations. But for the timely decision taken to deal with such a situation, I am afraid the stability of Singapore, and even this House, would have changed. Sir, in a country like Singapore, which is subject to foreign influences, we must build up our own culture through a selection of good foreign cultural influences. Of course, this is easier said than done. It is, therefore, necessary to institute measures such as those provided in this Bill, introduced by the Minister. In other words, this Bill seeks to transfer the control of the newspapers from some private hands into the hands of Singapore citizens. By these means we would be able to resist the interference by some ambitious foreign elements. Furthermore, I should also point out that when a private newspaper enterprise is controlled by a small group of people, the journalists are already known to suffer badly. Newspaper business is a profitable one. The leading Chinese newspapers make millions of dollars' profit per annum, but the journalists in such newspaper establishments, i.e, those who have to crack their heads and rack their brains, have not been properly remunerated. They have also not been allowed to have a share in the profits of the business. As the Member for Delta has pointed out, we should be able to improve the conditions of service of the journalists in Singapore through the establishment of a Press Council or any such body. Only then will journalists in Singapore be able to do a better job in the service and interest of our nation, and also to enrich our cultural heritage. Therefore, in view of this, I fully support this Bill. I would also like to take this opportunity to propose to the Government that apart from the negative approach to control by getting rid of undesirable influences, we should also adopt the positive approach for support of our cultural development. For example, the Ministry of Culture is now publishing the Mirror and also a radio and television magazine. However, I do not think this is adequate. Therefore, apart from the annual reports, which are inadequate, other Government Ministries and statutory bodies should also publish magazines containing materials of cultural value, including biographies. I would like to quote one example. Today I read a short article which reminds me of a certain reputable person, the late Mr Lee Kong Chian. He was a man of praiseworthy ambition and exemplary conduct. He is an example of a national asset. Although I cannot hope to do what he had done, I can at least look up to the ideals of his achievements. Therefore, we must try to record his words and deeds in some kind of publication so that Singapore citizens can learn from him. This is what I mean by the adoption of a positive approach as distinct from the negative approach to control. I would suggest that we must also adopt the positive approach by giving support to the encouragement of a constructive cultural development in our nation building. In this way we will be able to strengthen and consolidate our cultural front in the task of nation building. Then it will not be so easy for our people to be influenced by foreigners. Finally, Sir, I would reiterate my support for this Bill and its committal to the Select Committee for further consideration.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture has just introduced the Second Reading of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Bill, and I fully support him from the bottom of my heart. Sir, the introduction of this Bill is the very natural reflection of certain aspects of life in Singapore. Some people may associate this Bill with some kind of interference or control of the freedom of the press. Mr Speaker, Sir, in a country like Singapore which practises democracy, the freedom of the press is, of course, a matter of tradition. But if the people are to assume that the freedom of the press is something separate from the national interest, then it is not a healthy belief. No matter how sincere the directors or managers of newspapers may be and although they are without any political blots, it does not mean that their newspapers will be free from outside influence or unblemished as the directors and management personnel themselves. We have experienced attempts at black operations in the past. Black operations have come to be associated with the publication of news. We can, therefore, learn a lesson from this experience. And that is, in any country, newspapers of any type -whether it is a political, cultural, financial or movie newspaper - can be controlled, influenced or infiltrated by undesirable elements because the newspaper is a good means of disseminating propaganda. Once a newspaper is published, it is read by thousands and thousands of people in the home, in the office, or even in the toilet. It is because of the inherent and formidable influence of the newspaper that there is always the temptation for ambitious foreign elements to come in. Mr Speaker, Sir, in our midst we have a lot of journalists, who are now Ministers. I can mention the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Culture, the Parliamentary Secretary, and even some Backbenchers. For example, the Member for Henderson is the editor of the Petir (Chinese edition) and another Member is also the editor of the Jurong Newspaper. I myself was the former editor of the Petir (Chinese edition). So in our midst we have a number of journalists, and this instance is enough to indicate the close connection between politics and journalism. In the light of these facts and realities, there are some people who even dream dreams of freedom of the press. They are obsessed with the freedom of the press. However, these facts are enough to serve as an eye-opener to such dreamers. The Bill in this House seeks to ensure that the control of newspapers will always remain in the hands of our citizens and not in the hands of foreigners. This is, in fact, the very spirit of this Bill, as indicated by the Member for Delta. Whether this Bill is adequate to ensure what we want to achieve is something we have to think about. For example, under the Bill, shares of newspaper companies are to be classified into two categories, management shares and ordinary shares. Management shares can only be transferred to citizens approved by the Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir, the People's Action Party has gone through many years of political struggle. Through all our experiences in the struggle we have come to a situation where we have two types of membership in the PAP, the cadre membership and the ordinary membership. With these two classes of membership, we are able to ensure that control of a very influential political party like ours does not fall into the wrong hands. And if the management of newspapers can use a similar provision in the Bill wisely and with an enlightened view, they will be able to promote the interest of the country. Then only will the Bill be able to achieve what it seeks. I would also like to point out some of my misgivings. I am afraid that some newspaper men may misunderstand and think that the introduction of this Bill is just to control the press. This is not the case. As a matter of fact, bona fide newspaper men can, with the provisions of this Bill, do their job more efficiently and without fear. This Bill seeks to exercise some kind of check to ensure that the right people are in control of management shares and to prevent undesirable elements from owning management shares and thus gain control of the newspapers. In this way, bona fide newspaper men will be able to carry out their duties with peace of mind. When the Bill is passed, I hope such newspaper men will carry out their duties more positively and efficiently, particularly those who are thinking of publishing academic magazines or newspapers. Notwithstanding what I have said, Sir, we still have some newspapers of good standing. Newspapers which do good deeds will receive good rewards. However, there are newspapers which publish undesirable news items, articles or reports in order to attract a wider readership. I hope that after the final passage of this Bill, such a newspaper will be able to develop from a mosquito newspaper into a medium-sized newspaper and from a medium-sized newspaper into a large newspaper. The small or mosquito newspapers actually depend on crime reports or even sex stories to boost their sales. Such mosquito newspapers seem to paint a chaotic state of the world because the more chaotic the world is the more news they can publish, and the more sensationalism they can whip up the greater the boost to their sales. It is my hope that after the passage of this Bill, these newspapers will develop along a healthier direction in the interest of the people. With this hope I reiterate my full support for this Bill. 3.30 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the air of light-heartedness will not diminish the gravity of this Bill. Two years ago, when I was still in the Ministry of Culture, I dwelt on this same topic in this House - perhaps, the newspapers at that time did not give a fair description of my views then. But this is a trivial matter. Several Members have expressed their views on the influence of newspapers on culture, the very freedom of the press itself and foreign influence making inroads into Singapore. They also rightly commented on certain activities of the newspapers that were irrelevant as far as our people were concerned. But I feel that our main consideration for the passage of this Bill is based on national interest and security. We have to explain to the people the measures we now take lest they may feel that the introduction of this Bill is merely to exercise control over the English, Chinese and other newspapers. It must be made clear and the people must realise that what we are doing is in the interest of our country. What is important is that if a newspaper is in the hands of foreigners - as we all know the newspaper is a very effective public medium - and acts against the interest of our country, we must be vigilant against this manoeuvre and must necessarily nip it in the bud. Certain foreigners had publicised their own thoughts and ideas through our newspapers. Articles were written on what was labelled as "one-party monopoly" and on the question of parliamentary democracy in Singapore, lamenting the fact that there was no opposition in Parliament. What they advocated was the simplistic view that since there was no opposition in Parliament, there was no democracy. All these talks were nonsensical utterances. They viewed Singapore with a foreign standpoint and through tinted glasses. The result, of course, was that events were distorted and consequently confused the views of the people. These foreign journalists judged local events according to their own philosophies, standards and their own mental makeup. What may be acceptable to them, perhaps, would be a situation obtained in line with their own liking. What they failed to understand, and we are very conscious, is that our way of life, philosophy and attitude towards life are quite different from their own and since they do not see any similarity between Singapore and their country, they simply equate the situation as the non-existence of democracy and that ours is a "one-party monopoly" - or other evil things like that. Of course, not all foreign journalists are ignorant of the facts of life in Singapore, some were even appreciative of the situation here but there were others, awareness of the facts not- withstanding, deliberately behaved in a manner as dictated by their "behind-the curtain masters". It is not my intention to place all foreign journalists in this category but even they would accept that there were a few black sheep among them. It is understandable that foreign journalists have to make a living by selling their articles and news reports. There were articles specially written to criticize the method of governmental administration, implying high-handedness on the part of the Government in exerting pressure on certain newspapers and the journalistic circles. All these were calculated to create a confusion of mind and subvert the country's peace and order. It must be emphasized that when the chips are down, it was Singapore that would be responsible to ensure peace and order in our society. None of those who branded Singapore with all sorts of mischievous names could state in black and white that they, and they alone, could guarantee that peace and order in Singapore would not break down. What happened in the event of a chaotic situation that they helped bring about? Far from being able to assist, they would just make quick exit from the country and then retire into their bedroom to write articles on the situation and continue to earn their fees. Is that the kind of contribution they could make to Singapore? Even in Australia there was a time when members of the public were stirred when they learnt that a foreign newspaper tycoon was attempting to take over a certain local newspaper there. As I said earlier, there are those who view us in a different light and through their tinted glasses. Whatever we do, they react with scepticism. They seem to have strange imaginations about everything that we are trying to do for the good of our people. What we desire is a situation where the wishes and thinking of the people can be expressed truly through the newspapers, in short, the press should reflect the aspirations of Singaporeans and not foreigners. There were some newspapers who supported the views of other countries against their own viewpoints. This, perhaps, was intended to net in a wider readership. The question of the Straits of Malacca was a good example in point. This showed that we do have parasites even among our own journalists who are prepared to repeat what others say and echo them without considering the effects or consequences as a result of their toeing the policies of other countries. A journalist is just like anybody else. Everyone has his own character and personality. Likewise, a journalist should have his own professional integrity, personality and character. It is a pity that there are people who are only interested in fees and circulation and therefore seek to publish news or views that will cause public sensationalism. I had the opportunity to discuss this matter with one of them who remarked that "Whilst in business, let's talk business." I bluntly told him that if what he really wanted was mere business, then he should find it more profitable to launch into some other kind of enterprises and certainly not the newspapers because a newspaper should not be only a money-making proposition. I further added that there are many other ways to make money other than irresponsible writing in the newspapers. In fact, writing is a very hard way to make a living and if money is what one is after, then certainly the newspaper is the wrong place. The Member for Henderson commented on certain reports which my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs, did not seem to agree to. I will give just one example to illustrate what effects the choice of news reports can make in the community. There was quoted in a certain newspaper a robbery case in a foreign country. A clipping of that newspaper was sent to Singapore for publication. At the risk of being accused of creating an uproar in this House, let me briefly describe the contents of this news report as I think it is a very serious matter. The report said that a gang of robbers entered into a house and on failing to find anything valuable, they became furious and castrated a child whom they found in the house. This news item of atrocious brutality was a sensational news item in that country and every full stop and comma of this news report was reproduced in one of our local newspapers. What was it they hoped to achieve by quoting this article? Was it meant to reflect the comparative security of Singapore or was it meant to introduce or give ideas to our local criminals? Therefore, there must be certain principles which the editors must adopt in the choice and publication of news items. Mr Speaker, Sir, the main objective of this Bill is to ensure that newspapers should reflect the views and aspirations of our citizens. It cannot be denied that the newspaper is also an educational medium for the public and it has also a duty to educate and enlighten the community. Through its circulation, it can positively help in our efforts in nation building and in the maintenance of law and order. In short, the newspaper must work in the interest of the country and the people rather than for the sheer profit to fill the pockets of a small group of individuals. Sir, I support this Bill. 3.42 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill in toto. Although what I wanted to say has already been said, there is just one point I wish to mention. I feel that there is one clause in the Bill which is a little too preponderant. In Part III, clause 9 (2) says: `No newspaper company shall refuse to issue management shares to any person who has been granted the written approval of the Minister to purchase such shares.' I feel that this is a little too drastic, and I hope to present certain views on this point when this Bill is sent to Select Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I promise to be very brief. Clause 10 prohibits the receipt of funds from a foreign source. The intention is quite clear. But on reading it, I am a little concerned that the clause, if implemented in its present form, may also be used as a means of subversion against us. For example, if someone dislikes a particular pressman, it can be so easily arranged for a certain sum of money to be deposited into a bank account in that individual's name. Having done so, an anonymous report can then be made to the Minister and, if the consequent investigations are not objective and thorough enough, miscarriage of justice could arise. I am not a lawyer. I do not know what the legal implications are, but I am just wondering whether there are adequate safeguards for our pressmen. I hope this point will be looked into by the Select Committee. 3.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an important Bill, one that is bound to provoke controversy both within and outside Singapore. It brings to the fore once again the peculiar problems faced by small strategically located developing States that are endeavouring to transform their socio-economic structures without compromising their independence internationally on the basis of democratic institutions. Sad to say, the Bill also demonstrates the fragile base on which educated opinion in Singapore moves. It is a pity too that despite the phenomenal strides that we have made in education over the last 20 years, no newspaper has emerged in Singapore as a national institution serving the national interest. It was still possible only a few years ago for a combination of foreign interests to mount the Singapore Herald to confuse and divide educated opinion on issues that were vital to the social peace and security of Singapore. There were no in-built checks and balances to contain the operation. The State had to step in. Popular political thinking defines democratic politics in terms of a few fundamental freedoms, of which freedom of the press is one. But, unlike the other fundamental freedoms, the freedom of the press has become over the last hundred years or so the handmaiden of vast economic interests. In the context of Singapore these interests have always been international in character. In the final analysis the press in South-east Asian states has to-date been controlled by foreign rather than national interests. It is this situation that we have to meet in the course of our political development. Having said this, Sir, one wonders if the Bill has not gone too far than was necessary in regulating the problem. The provision that management shares could only be held by Singapore citizens with the approval of the Minister appears to be too drastic, on the face of it. It would be preferable to leave the management shares in the hands of Singapore citizens regardless of Ministerial approval but with the negative stipulation that no management shares shall be refused to persons who have been approved by the Minister. The provisions of clause 10 are more than sufficient and adequate to deal with the problems posed by foreign financial control of national press. The experiment is an interesting one. Time only will tell if the aims and objectives of the Bill are achieved and also whether in the process we have stifled free, frank and fearless discussion of issues that vitally concern the nation. 3.50 p.m.

Mr Govindaswamy?

Sir, in fact, I do not want to speak on this Bill, but since Mr Speaker has called me I might as well say something. Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Bill. But we must not be too strict in our control of the newspapers, for if we do they cannot be published. That is very bad. The newspaper must be given some freedom, otherwise people will say that it is controlled by the Government. Therefore, the Minister must consider giving some freedom to the newspaper. However, I fully support the Bill. Since this Bill is going to the Select Committee, most probably we will get public opinion.

Sir, first of all, I must thank Members for their enthusiastic support for this Bill. Many of them have been very articulate and, in fact, they have made longer speeches than I expected. I must take this opportunity to assure Members of the House and also members of the public that it is not the intention of the Government to go into the newspaper business. Our intention is to see that newspapers are properly managed and that they cannot be taken over by undesirable elements which may then direct their policies against the interests of our nation. That is the sole purpose of this Bill. The Member for Kim Seng and the Member for Kuo Chuan have to a certain extent mentioned the fear that the Bill might be delegating undue powers to the Minister or the Government for control of the press. Those fears exist in the minds of many people. I think it should be sufficient to allay the fears of these people when I say that it is not the intention of the Government to take over the newspapers but to see that a free press is allowed to be conducted in Singapore. It is certainly not our intention to curb the genuine expression of public opinion. In fact, it is to our interest that those opinions should be allowed to be expressed. Let the flowers bloom. In a situation like ours it is quite important that the man-in-the-street should be given the opportunity to express his opinion, whether it is about buses, the Ministry of Culture's TV programmes or other matters. He should be given the opportunity to express his opinion publicly and there is no other medium better than the press. We would like to see this sort of freedom existing in Singapore. However, many very important views have been expressed by Members, and I am sure that these views will be taken care of when the Bill is considered by the Select Committee. There are some minor points which I should touch on briefly. The Member for Delta has queried: since the management shares are so important that their voting rights are greater than those of the ordinary shares, what type of citizens will be allowed to own these management shares? We have not come to that stage yet; let us cross the bridge when we come to it. I am sure the Minister for Home Affairs will be able to advise me as to which type of citizens will be allowed to own those shares. We have, in fact, considered a Press Council for a very long time, but we found that it is not practicable under our present conditions. First of all, who is to be the Chairman? Who gives the order? Who lays down policies? These are all very complicated matters, and I think it would be better that the press be allowed to manage themselves. Therefore, we have introduced these management shares to ensure that only the right people are allowed to exercise the powers of management of newspapers. The Members for Bukit Merah and Henderson and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour have also offered very good advice to the newspaper directors as to how they should run the newspapers and what sort of articles should be put in to attract more readers, and so on. I hope the newspapers concerned will take note of their advice and make improvements to the contents of their newspapers. Apart from those comments, Sir, I have nothing more to add.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, "That the Newspaper and Printing Presses 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 Jek Yeun Thong].

Order for Second Reading read. 3.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to introduce several amendments to the Mutual Benefit Organisations Act (Chapter 254 of the Revised Edition) which are found necessary in the light of experience gained in administering the Act. The proposed amendments seek to strengthen the hands of the Registrar in administering the Mutual Benefit Organisations Act which provides for the registration and control of all mutual benefit organisations in the Republic. At present, there are 427 such organisations with a total membership of 191,367. Many of the long established organisations have accumulated large surplus funds over the years. As the majority of the members of mutual benefit organisations are from the lower-income group and often illiterate, there must be adequate legislation to ensure that these mutual benefit organisations are properly managed and their activities consistent with the objectives of their organisations for the welfare and benefit of the subscribers. It is, therefore, necessary that the interests of the members be safeguarded by appropriate law against exploitation by unscrupulous persons. Experience over the years has shown that the existing provisions in the Mutual Benefit Organisations Act relating to registration and cancellation of mutual benefit organisations are inadequate and restrictive. There is no provision at present empowering the Registrar to refuse registration of newly formed organisations if he has reason to believe that such organisations have been formed for the personal gain of the organisers. Nor has the Registrar the power to prevent mutual benefit organisations from being managed by persons of dubious character or used for any purpose contrary to the public interest. To remedy this, sections 5 and 6 of the Act will be repealed and two new sections re-enacted to provide the Registrar with wider powers in considering an application for the registration of a mutual benefit organisation. Under the existing section 7, a person aggrieved by the refusal of the Registrar to register an organisation may appeal at any time to the Minister. It is desirable to stipulate a fixed period in which an appeal may be made. Section 7 of the Act is, therefore, being amended so that an appeal against the decision of a Registrar must be made within one month from the date of notification of such a decision. In addition, a new section 1lA is being introduced for the purpose of prohibiting any person who has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty or moral turpitude, or who has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than $2,000 and who has not received a free pardon, from acting as an officer of a mutual benefit Organisation. Subsection (1) of section 27 will be deleted and a new subsection re-enacted to give the Registrar wider powers to cancel the registration of any mutual benefit organisation. Finally, the Bill also seeks to introduce a new subsection under section 45 to enable the Minister to exempt any organisation, person or class of persons, from any or all of the provisions of the Act. The purpose of this new subsection is to allow some flexibility in administering the Act under special circumstances. 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 Chan Chee Sengl. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.02 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Urban Redevelopment Authority Act (No. 65 of 1973), which was passed by this House in November last year and assented to by the President in January this year, will be put into operation on the 1st of April this year. Under the provisions of the Act, the Car Parks Division of my Ministry will be integrated with the Urban Redevelopment Authority. However, matters presently administered by the Car Parks Division will continue to be governed by the Parking Places Act (Cap. 19, 1970 Edition). The Bill now before the House seeks to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, the Parking Places Act, 1970. I will draw Members' attention to only some of the more significant features, namely, clause 3 which empowers the Minister to provide suitable parking places for vehicles. Clause 4 prohibits persons from maintaining or operating any private parking places unless he is a holder of a valid licence, and empowers the Minister to prescribe the manner in which a licensed private parking place is to be maintained or operated. Clause 6 provides for the appointment of a Superintendent of Car Parks. Clause 8 empowers the Minister to make rules to regulate the use of public and private parking places. Clause 16 provides for the payment of all charges collected and all fines imposed into the funds of the Urban Redevelopment Authority. 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. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 3, after "Government", to insert "or the Authority". This is a drafting error which needs correction. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 to 17 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.08 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Hitherto, the Government has adopted a laissez-faire policy towards martial arts organisations in Singapore. This is because these organisations like the Chinese pugilistic organisations, the bersilat and judo clubs, etc., have been in existence for many years and have become part of the cultural life of our population. Hence any exponent of these arts is free to practise or to impart his skill to whoever wants to learn the art. The Government considers that the discipline and the training provided in acquiring the skill will develop a "healthy mind and healthy body" and thus help to build a rugged society in our Republic. These organisations were, therefore, allowed to function without impediment. In recent years there has been a proliferation of martial arts organisations in Singapore. At the end of 1973, there were 128 martial arts organisations registered in Singapore compared to only 32 in 1963. It is difficult to estimate the number of trainees learning martial arts, although this has been placed between 13,000 to 18,000. New arts like karate and taekwondo have emerged in Singapore, and variations of these arts like akido, kendo, jiu-jitsu, as well as the different Chinese pugilistic arts have been developed. The rapid growth of these organisations and the increasing number of trainees learning different martial arts can be traced to their popularisation by Chinese films especially from Hongkong and Taiwan in the late 60's which glorify the use of martial arts. These films which emphasise violence and bloodshed were one of the contributory factors resulting in an increase in the crime rate and a rise in violence in the commission of crimes. It is noted that between 1967 and 1969 when these films were widely shown in the Republic, the number of new pugilistic organisations which applied to the Government for registration increased at the rate of 11 to 15 each year compared to very few in the 50's and in the early 60's. Although the Government has imposed strict censorship on these films last year, the number of martial arts organisations applying to the Government for registration has not abated. Up to March this year, there were 133 registered martial arts organisations with 11 new applications under consideration. The increasing interest amongst our population in martial art training has made many of these organisations become commercial concerns. Some pseudo martial arts organisations have also sprung up to exploit the market. Since there is little or no control over these organisations, any instructor who professes sufficient knowledge of any martial art can organise a class and apply for registration to the Registrar of Societies or the Registrar of Business Names by payment of a small fee. Both the Registrars have no means of checking whether such an instructor is qualified to teach this skill or to whom he should impart his knowledge. Similarly, instructors will readily accept any trainee as a student with scant concern about his background, his purpose in acquiring the art and whether he would benefit from it, so long as he is prepared to meet the fee required for receiving such training. There is, therefore, little control as to who is qualified to teach or who can learn the art. Because of the laxity in admission and the general availability of these martial arts organisations to the public, many of these organisations have been penetrated by secret society members and the criminal elements who learn martial art to further their own ends. These secret society members use the art in gang clashes to glorify the triad which they belong and also to cow innocent victims from whom they extort money. In a recent study on some 115 pugilistic organisations in Singapore, it was found that 33 of these have been penetrated by secret society elements and 10 of them have elements with adverse security records. Although it is not the intention of Government to deter anyone who requires martial art training to build up a healthy body and for self-defence, it is recognised that organisations which teach martial art, be it a Chinese pugilistic art, or karate or taekwondo or judo or bersilat, in effect, equip their members with a potential weapon which, if abused, can have serious consequences for their victims and serious implications for the maintenance of law and order. As such, in the interest of society, Government has found it necessary to institute proper controls to regulate the activities of such organisations and to ensure that those whom they teach are not likely to abuse the art that they have acquired. In other words, the knowledge and skill of martial arts in the hands of disciplined and law-abiding persons can be of benefit to both the exponent and society. But if such knowledge and skill were allowed to fall into the wrong hands it can be very dangerous and detrimental to society. Hence, the Martial Arts Instruction Bill before the House. Martial arts, as defined in the Bill, include karate, taekwondo, judo, akido, kendo, bersilat, kung-fu, jiu-jitsu, or a combination thereof. However, in view of the fact that new forms of martial arts or variations of existing forms of martial arts are introduced into Singapore from time to time, this definition of "martial art" cannot be comprehensive. However, the Minister is empowered by clause 2 (2) to declare any other art of pugilism, fighting, boxing or self-defence to be a martial art for purposes of the Act. The administration of the Act will be in the hands of a Controller of Martial Arts. Assistant Controllers will also be able to exercise all the powers conferred on the Controller, subject to such limitations as he may impose (clause 3). Clause 5 of the Bill requires all martial art associations to be registered. The Controller shall refuse registration in the circumstances stipulated in clause 4 (3) and may refuse registration in certain other circumstances stipulated in clause 4 (4). An unregistered martial art association, which is organised in Singapore and whose officers, employees or members provide instruction in any form of martial art in Singapore, will be deemed to be unlawful. It will be an offence for a person to pursue certain activities in connection with unlawful martial art associations (clauses 5, 15, 16, 17 and 18). Clause 11 empowers the Controller to order any registered martial art association to furnish him with such information as he may require concerning the provision of instruction in any form of martial art at a place of instruction provided by the association or with any document, account or book of the association relating thereto. Clause 19 seeks to disallow any person from holding office in a registered martial art association if he has been declared, in writing, by the Controller to be unfit to act as an officer of a martial art association. The Controller may make such declaration upon any of the grounds stipulated in clause 19. Any person who acts in contravention of this clause will be liable, on conviction, to a maximum fine of $500 or to a maximum term of imprisonment of six months or to both such fine and imprisonment. Whenever it appears to the Minister that any officer, employee or member of a registered martial art association provides instruction in any form of martial art at a place of instruction provided by the association in an unlawful manner or for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore, the Minister may order the cancellation of the registration of the association. A similar power is conferred upon the Minister where the association has contravened any provision of the Act or any regulations made thereunder. No person except an instructor who is in possession of an instructor's certificate issued under the Act may instruct any person in any form of martial art (clause 21). The Controller will be responsible for granting instructor's certificates. Clause 25 (3) stipulates the grounds on which the Controller may refuse to grant an instructor's certificate. Clause 26 empowers the Controller to revoke, cancel or suspend an instructor's certificate for any of the reasons stipulated in that clause. No person may receive instruction in any form of martial art from an instructor unless he is registered as a trainee under the Act (clause 22). The Controller will be responsible for the registration of trainees. Clause 22 stipulates the grounds on which the Controller may refuse to register any person as a trainee. Clause 24 empowers the Controller to revoke, cancel or suspend the registration of a trainee for any of the reasons stipulated in that clause. Clause 31 provides the Controller and Police officers with the powers of entry, search and arrest, in circumstances where there is reason to believe that an offence has been committed under the Act. Clause 34 empowers the Minister to exempt any organisation, person or class of persons from any or all of the provisions of the Act. The Minister may also make regulations generally for carrying out the purposes and provisions of the Act (clause 39). There are transitional provisions in the Bill to cater for those martial art associations which are in existence and for those instructors and trainees who are providing or receiving instruction in any form of martial art, as the case may be before the commencement of the Act (clauses 40 and 41). Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Martial Arts Instruction Bill. I would like to inquire from the Minister for Health and Home Affairs whether he would consider encouraging members of the Police force to undergo training in all the various forms of martial arts because in Singapore at the present time a lot of bad hats have some experience in various forms of martial art. Members of the Armed Forces too have a duty to enforce law and order. Therefore, it would be advantageous and necessary, if it is possible, for all members of the Armed Forces to be trained in the martial arts. If there are sufficient instructors, members of the Vigilante Corps should also be encouraged to undergo this kind of training.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. In recent years the various forms of martial arts, such as the Chinese pugilistic art, Western boxing, wrestling, taekwondo, judo and many others have been found to be very popular with the younger generation. More and more people are learning some form of martial art. The Bill introduced by the Minister, therefore, seeks to exercise certain control over the instruction and training of the various forms of martial art, so as to ensure their proper guidance and development. The Chinese pugilistic arts have a very long history, whereas the development of martial arts in Singapore has been very active only in recent years. I remember a few years ago after a Chinese martial art organisation was formed, much assistance was given to its various members. Its members have contributed to many items of activity for our National Day celebrations and other festivals. I refer to the Singapore Federation of Pugilistic Association. Their contributions include the lion dance, the dragon dance and other performances for our various celebrations, particularly on National Day. The Bill requires instructors and members of any martial art organisation to be registered and perhaps screened so that there can be proper control over them. This is very good indeed because those people who learn the martial arts comprise all kinds of people, including dubious elements. So if by legislation we can ensure that the members of these organisations are all disciplined and law-abiding people, then it is a law that will indeed do good for Singapore. I have several suggestions to make to the Minister. The Bill provides for the appointment of a Controller of Martial Arts who will have to exercise administrative control over martial arts. However, I would like to know whether he will be someone well versed in the martial arts. I suppose he is expected to be conversant with all forms of martial arts. If not, he should at least be conversant with certain forms of martial arts, so that he will be capable of exercising judgment when reviewing applications. Secondly, with regard to the registration of private martial art organisations, or institutes as they call them, I understand some of these organisations are recruiting trainees in kung-fu or some kind of pugilistic art. I would like to ask whether these martial art institutes have to be registered under the Bill before they can carry out their enrolment exercise. 4.28 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, following the call by the Government to all citizens to be strong and healthy, many martial art organisations have sprung up, and more and more people are joining these institutes to take up martial arts. But these people have different motives. Some learn it as a form of exercise to improve their health; while others have ulterior motives. So the introduction of this Bill is very timely and also very useful. However, there are several points which I would like the Minister to clarify. First, the definition of martial arts. For instance, the so-called kung-fu, as I understand it, is a Chinese form of pugilistic art. However, its connotation is very wide. There should be a more clear-cut definition of kung-fu. Another instance is tai-chi. It should be made clear whether or not tai-chi, or shadow boxing, is to be classified under this definition. There are many old folks performing the tai-chi in the parks and other places. They even include old crones, grandmothers and grandfathers, and they go to the Botanic Gardens as well. Therefore, there should be a proper definition of martial arts so that the Director of Botanic Gardens will not mistake the exercises of these old people for something unlawful. Secondly, with regard to instructors which the Member for Sembawang has also touched upon, they have to apply to the Controller for an instructor's certificate. Before the Controller of Martial Arts issues such certificates, he has to be satisfied with the applicant's character and morals. But, in addition to this, the Controller should also make sure that the applicant is well qualified in the particular martial art in which he wishes to instruct. The third point is about registration of trainees. The Minister has given a detailed explanation on this point. The idea is to exercise some control over these people so that they may not utilise their skill for criminal purposes. Therefore, the registration of trainees is very important. I remember that in the past, when one wished to be enrolled for the boxing or weight-lifting classes run by the community centres, one's name would be sent for screening. But such practice has ceased now. I think it is necessary to revive such practice. Another aspect is that if a community centre wants to provide instruction in certain forms of martial art, the centre concerned must first take its environment into consideration whether or not such form of martial art is worthwhile to be introduced to the people around. For illustration purposes, I would like to quote one example of the community centres in my constituency. Martial art classes, such as karate, etc, are conducted in the Tiong Bahru Community Centre, and many people have been taking part in these classes. A number of people who live around the Kim Tian Community Centre have also requested for such classes to be conducted there. But I opposed the suggestion because we frequently read in the newspapers about gang fights among secret society members around that area. So I feel that martial art classes should not be allowed in certain areas.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the hon. Members who have spoken in strong support of the Bill. There is nothing more for me to add except to answer a few queries which Members have brought up. The first is from the Member for Bukit Ho Swee. He asked whether some form of martial art training is being given to Police officers. In fact, in the training of Police officers, they are given training on what is called unarmed combat. With regard to the VCs, particularly those who are now engaged in the community security force policing, they are also being taught or given training in unarmed combat as well. With regard to the queries brought up by the Member for Sembawang, who I understand is an honorary adviser to a pugilistic association, he asked whether the Controller of Martial Arts will be a person well versed in martial arts. May I say that he would have knowledge of martial arts but he need not necessarily be an exponent of martial arts. The Member also asked whether all martial arts associations must be registered. If they come within the definition of "martial arts" as has been defined in the Bill, they will have to be registered. The point brought up by the Member for Tiong Bahru is with regard to the definition of martial arts. I have in my speech given the definition as provided by the Bill. "Martial art" is defined to include taekwondo, judo, akido, kendo, bersilat, kung-fu, jiu-jitsu or a combination or variation thereof. However, as I have also stated, the definition cannot be exhaustive because it has a very wide meaning, and therefore the Minister has been given powers to declare any other art of pugilism, fighting, boxing or self-defence to be a martial art for the purposes of the Act. The purpose of the Act is to control the people who have acquired the skill so that they would not use it for their own ends, in other words, for criminal purposes. That is the wide basis on which the definition is made. The Member brought up the specific example of tai-chi, or shadow boxing. I do not know very much about tai-chi. From what I can gather, tai-chi is actually a form of exercise and not necessarily a form of self-defence where one can cause injury to another person. If it is brought to my notice that it can cause injury, then I will exercise my powers under the Bill and classify it as a martial art. If it is just a form of exercise and cannot cause injury, then I will not consider it as a form of martial art. The word "martial" means "pertaining to warfare". So it must be an aggressive art, although used in self-defence. But I think an exponent of martial arts will be able to advise me whether tai-chi should or should not be considered a martial art. I do not want to decide on the matter right now. With regard to the point brought up by the Member for Tiong Bahru about what sort of instructors will be issued with certificates, of course, firstly, they will be screened and if they have a criminal record, then they will not be issued with instructors' certificates. Secondly, on the question of what sort of skill they should have, unless we have a board of examiners, we are unable to judge the skill of an instructor. But so long as an applicant has genuine skills and is not a pseudo, he may be certified as an instructor.

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. I suspend the Sitting now and shall take the Chair again at 5.10 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.42 p.m. until 5.10 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.10 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The re-registration exercise for persons born between 6th May, 1949, and 5th May, 1955, and who obtained their identity cards before attaining the age of 17 years ended on 29th September, 1973. However, in spite of the wide publicity given to this exercise and the provision of facilities for re-registration in practically all the community centres, about 19,000 persons Out of the 252,000 persons required to register under Regulation 15 of the National Registration Regulations, 1966, have not re-registered. These persons are liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term up to five years or to a fine up to $1,000 or to both imprisonment and a fine. In order to reduce further the number of persons who have not registered, the Government has decided to extend the closing date of the re-registration exercise to the end of this month. However, it is envisaged that there will still be some who will still not re-register by this new dead-line. This number may be further increased with future re-registration exercises. It would be impractical to bring every case to court. Besides the presence of large numbers of offenders will increase congestion in our courts. It is, therefore, proposed that the National Registration Act be amended to provide for the composition of offences prescribed under the National Registration Regulations, 1966. Consequent upon this amendment, the National Registration Regulations, 1966, will empower the Commissioner of National Registration to compound offences relating to late re-registration of persons who have attained the age of 17 years, by a fine not exceeding $100. 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. 5.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," The Bill proposes to impose with effect from 1st January, 1974, a surcharge of 10 per cent on the annual values of real estate, other than industrial and commercial properties, not owned by citizens of Singapore or permanent residents. The Bill has arisen from Government's concern with the speculation on residential properties and vacant land and the consequent escalation in their prices. The steep rise in prices is attributable to, among other factors, purchases by non-residents. Those of our local citizens and permanent residents who do not qualify for Housing Board flats, therefore, find their hope of purchasing their own homes from private housing estates frustrated by prices beyond their means to pay. It is the objective of the Government to realise a scheme for widespread home ownership amongst its citizens and permanent residents. To ensure the success of such a scheme, Government announced in September last year that only Singapore citizens would be eligible to purchase residential properties and vacant land with effect from September, 1973. Permanent residents, non-citizens and others may be allowed to purchase residential properties or vacant lands only with the approval of the Government. The imposition of a property tax surcharge, equal to 10 per cent of the annual values of properties and land, was also announced as a further measure aimed at curbing excessive speculation in real estate and stabilising prices of residential properties and vacant land. Both these measures are designed to assist the many young executives, professionals, etc, among its citizens ineligible for Housing Board units to purchase their own homes. The present Bill is, therefore, to give effect to the second of these measures in Government's stated policy. Clause 4 enables rules to be published in the Gazette to exempt certain classes of persons or categories from payment of the surcharge. Exemption of the surcharge will be granted to the following categories of properties: (a) Properties owned by a Singapore citizen or a permanent resident of Singapore including all owner-occupied HDB fiats and temporary structures; (b) Properties owned by a company registered in Singapore and carrying on business in Singapore; (c) Properties owned by an association, club, society or an approved body registered in Singapore; and (d) Industrial and commercial built-up properties irrespective of ownership. Clause 5 vests in the President the power to vary the rate of surcharge. Clause 6 provides for the situation where a residential property is jointly owned by either a Singapore citizen or a permanent resident and a non-citizen. In such cases, the Comptroller is given discretionary power to remit wholly or in part the property tax surcharge payable, if he is satisfied that the property is occupied by the joint owners and that payment of the surcharge will result in hardship. Clauses 8, 9 and 11 make provisions for the Comptroller of Property Tax to seek information and prescribe forms or returns for effective enforcement and collection of the surcharge. Clause 10 provides that if an offence is committed to evade the surcharge, any person on conviction is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000. When fraud is involved, the penalty will be five times the surcharge not including a further fine of $5,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or both fine and imprisonment. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill in its spirit. I think it is a laudable Bill in that the intentions as expressed in September last year were to have a stabilising effect upon the rising cost of land and private property. What I would like to know from the Minister, however, is: what has been the actual effect of this Bill on the state of things today, whether the announcement in September last year has produced any decline or stabilising effect on the prices of land and private property in this country? The Minister has quite rightly pointed out the plight of the middle income wage earners. As it is today, I think even with a knowledge of the present inflationary trend, private property and land are well beyond the reach of the middle income wage earner. To my mind, the proposition that the Government has made and the measures it has taken to build more flats and also the intention to build condominium type of terrace houses for this middle income group is something worth pursuing. What I feel is that the Government should step up the construction of these flats and houses. This will probably contribute more towards the welfare of the middle income wage earner than the Bill as such, although in principle and in spirit, it has laudable objectives. May I ask the Hon. Minister if he could explain to this House whether this Bill has or will have any real effect upon the state of property and land values today? 5.20 p.m.

Sir, I share the sentiments expressed by the Member for Kim Seng. The Minister has said just now that the intention of this Bill is to help the young executives who do not qualify for Housing and Development Board fiats. I wonder whether these young executives are in a position to purchase flats built by private developers. Sir, I saw an advertisement only about a week ago on the sale of flats in the Cairnhill Plaza. The price of each flat ranges from $200,000 to $300,500. If someone takes a housing loan amounting to 80 per cent of the price of the flat, payable in 15 years, he would have to pay a monthly instalment of over $1,000. I wonder whether a young executive or a young professional person, like a doctor, who earns about $1,200 a month can afford to buy that sort of a house. Sir, my suggestion is this: with the increasing cost of building materials, cement and other things, perhaps the Government could allow development of certain places at a higher density than the present. This will help to lower the prices of land, and at the same time since more flats could be built this will naturally reduce the price of houses. I think this is much better than depending only on the Housing and Development Board flats. Even the HDB project in Ulu Pandan has to be stopped for the time being because of price increases in building materials. I wonder if this project is going to materialise and whether these young executives will be able to purchase those flats. 5.23 p.m.

Sir, on the questions which have been raised, it is possible to give answers on a very general basis. My Ministry of Finance has monitored the prices of houses since we announced the Government policy on this matter. We notice, first of all, a tendency for prices to remain relatively stable. In the few cases that we have monitored in different housing estates, we have noticed a fall in prices of 10-20 per cent. In other cases, of course, we have seen that there was a sort of stabilisation in the price. In certain cases, however, some flats have even gone up in price, hut this may be due perhaps to furniture and furnishings, air-conditioning, and so on, which we do not know very much about. The data I have are not sufficiently detailed for an analysis to be made, but I am quite sure that there has been some effect upon the announcement of Government's policy since last September. The Member for Kim Seng was quite right in saying that we should also build more flats in condominium type units for the middle income group. We certainly are going to do this. I believe my colleague here has announced that even the Housing and Development Board is going to build some flats for people who do not qualify now as they are above the $1,500 per month household income. While I agree that we should build these units, I think we must tackle the problem from as many fronts as possible, and the Bill which I am taking through all its stages here today will help to reduce or stabilise prices of the kind of housing which the middle income groups may be able to purchase. I agree with the Member for Changi that when it comes to flats costing $200,000 and over, or detached houses of the same value, it is very unlikely that an executive drawing $1,500 a month will be able to afford the instalments, which he will be required to pay for the flat. But there are other types of housing, like the terrace houses, semi-detached houses and flats which are not in the $200,000 class. I think there are flats costing around $100,000 or even less.

Even then they have to pay an instalment of about $900 per month.

That depends also on the interest rate which is charged, and I think many employers and certainly the Government and the statutory boards have given housing loans at lower interest rates.

On a point of clarification, Sir,I am sure the Hon. Minister is aware that the credit squeeze has resulted in very high interest rates and difficulty in getting loans. Even if we work on the basis of a $100,000 flat, payable in 10 years at 10 per cent interest per annum, we have got to pay $200,000 in 10 years, which means $20,000 per year or about $2,000 a month. Can a wage earner earning $1,500 to $2,000 afford this kind of housing? If my figures are correct, then it is not possible for him to purchase such a flat. I think there is a strong case for the Government to step up its building programme for the middle income wage earners. Priority, of course, must be given to those in the civil service.

Sir, I have already said that I fully agree there is a need for more housing to be constructed, whether by the Housing Board, statutory boards, JTC, or by firms. I am sure the executive housing in Jurong is within the means of the junior executives in Jurong. If any of our Members of Parliament wish to buy the kind of executive flats that are being put up in Jurong, I think we can easily build quite a lot more in addition to what my colleague has been building. With regard to the credit squeeze, I think that is generally applicable to purchases of luxury-type apartments and housing, and it is not intended for the kind of loans which companies make to their employees. If, in fact, the credit squeeze is being operated in a way which has prevented this, I am sure my Ministry and the Monetary Authority of Singapore will be prepared to consider a relaxation of this kind of credit control to the benefit of the middle income group.

Hear, hear!

Sir, I had no intention of joining in this debate. I am sure my colleague can look after himself very well. But there was a point raised by the Member for Changi that if population densities were higher, plot ratios increase and on a given plot of, say, one acre, if a building goes higher, then the total cost will be cheaper. I agree with that. In fact, it has been the practice of my Ministry to relax and increase plot ratios, especially in the heart of the City. That is why we see the high buildings that are being erected, some of which have been completed. But obviously there is a limit beyond which we cannot go, and the density aspect, of course, is just one part of the cost. Costs have gone up because building materials have gone up, and I have spelt out the details earlier on. I thought I should clarify to the Member on this point which has not been answered by my colleague.

Sir, neither did I intend to take part in this debate. But I think the density ratio plays an important part. I have some experience in this. Perhaps there has been some relaxation within the City area. But in the periphery, the Building Control Division, or the approving authority, is still very strict on allowing a relaxation of density in certain areas. This applies not only to developments of private developers but also to statutory boards wanting to build houses for their employees. In the Minister's constituency, Tanglin, certainly nobody can put up houses more than 4-storeys high. Sir, I know of a statutory board which planned to build blocks of houses 8-storeys high. There was a tremendous response from the employees. But planning approval was not given, and modifications had to be made, after which the cost of each unit went up by about 25-30 per cent, making it beyond the means of the junior executive to purchase. Perhaps what the Member for Changi said has more value than it really appears. I think the Building Control Division and the Planning Office could also assist junior executives to purchase flats and bring down the cost by relaxing the density ratio.

Sir, I think that point deserves a reply. Firstly, I think the hon. Member does not know exactly the boundaries of my constituency when he said that housing development is confined to 4-storey flats. To give him an example, he will find that flats opposite the Botanic Gardens have gone far, far beyond the 4-storey height which he has referred to. And that is not the only place in Tanglin. Tanglin stretches from Lido Theatre to the MacRitchie Reservoir. Regarding densities, we have been allowing developers to build higher and higher. But if a developer had bought a piece of land knowing that the plot ratio is 3:1, and then having bought it expect to get a plot ratio of 10:1, it means he is going to make a lot of money, and the prices of land will still go much higher. But there have been many cases where the ratios have been relaxed, especially in town where the plot ratio is now 10:1. It used to be 3:1 before. That is why there are buildings going up to 50 storeys. There is one developer who wanted to go up to 100. Every developer in Singapore wants to go higher and higher. He builds 36, I go 37. Someone else goes 50. They all want to go the highest. So there must be some planning control. I do not know the particular statutory board that the Member has referred to, but statutory boards are given special attention by my Ministry. Obviously we cannot favour statutory boards and give them high plot ratios when perhaps next door we have confined a private developer to a certain plot ratio. But I agree with Members that the price of land bears an important part to the total price. Hence Government's measures to try and bring down the price of land, and this Bill helps to further stabilise the price of land. We have succeeded to some extent, as my colleague has pointed out, in bringing down the prices of land by about 20 per cent in some cases. We hope it will stay that way, and does not rocket to the skies again.

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. 5.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The reasons for introducing this Bill are the same as those I mentioned in introducing the amending Acts of 1971 and 1973, namely, to give effect to recommendations by the U.K. Jenkins Committee Report on Company Law Reform, particularly insofar as these recommendations affect the principle of greater disclosure of information by companies as a safeguard against malpractices and the powers and duties of directors. Disclosure of information is an essential part of the working of a free and fair economic system, subject to certain limitations to allow for competitive situations. Under existing legislation, substantial powers already exist to require disclosure by directors in their accounts or in relation to contracts in which they have an interest, or in any dealings they may have in their company shares (including insider dealings) and so on. This Bill extends the disclosure principle by requiring that the interests of members of a director's family in contracts with the company shall be treated as an interest of a director and will need to be disclosed to fellow directors (clause 14), and by requiring a director who acquires or disposes of shares in his company which are listed on a Stock Exchange to notify a Stock Exchange which may publish the information (clause 17), and by providing that there should be clear and specific disclosure in general meeting of any alteration in directors' emoluments (clause 18). On a previous occasion in this House, I have made the point that there is nothing inherently wrong in the practice of holding shares through nominees and there are many circumstances in which the practice is both normal and convenient on commercial and personal grounds. However, there are circumstances in which concealment of a beneficial interest in a shareholding can be undesirable. I refer particularly to the situation known as "warehousing", in which a number of parties act in undisclosed concert in such a way as not to bring their interest within the existing provisions dealing with substantial shareholders. These provisions require that those with an interest in the equity of a company of 10 per cent or more have to disclose their interest. Persons can evade the provisions by acting in concert and acquiring shareholdings amounting to, for example, 9.5 per cent. This enables such persons to acquire by stealth a dominant position in a company, particularly in a take-over situation. Government considers that the risk of abuse of the nominee system in this regard will be minimised if the notification percentage is reduced from 10 per cent to 5 per cent, and if the notification, in which changes or cessation of a substantial shareholding are to be given to the company, is reduced from 14 days to seven days (clause 9). A further provision is inserted which will enable a company to know if a warehouse situation is developing or if it is a target for a take-over bid. This provision confers the right upon a company to ascertain the real identity of the owners of its shares (clause 12). Other major amendments proposed in the Bill are concerned with the powers and duties of directors. Clause 15 lays down in a new section 132B that the matter in which directors of a company are entitled to have regard are the interest of its employees as well as its members. This provision serves to emphasise the duty that a company has to its employees and may be compared with clause 4 which includes amongst the powers of a company to make provision for the benefit of employees and former employees upon the cessation of the business of a company or any subsidiary. This clause introduces two new provisions which are important. In section 132D it is provided that approval of a company in general meeting is required before directors of a company issue shares. The unfettered discretion of directors to issue shares (once authorised) has sometimes worked to the detriment of shareholders, for example, by diluting shareholders' capital in certain circumstances. The imposition of the proposed form of control will apply to the issue of shares for cash or for other consideration. Its effect will be to give more control to shareholders without interfering unduly with the directors' business of managing the company. The provisions in section l32C is a restatement of the law as at present appears in section 35 (3) of the Act. Power is given to the court on the application of a member of the company to prevent directors from carrying into effect proposals for disposing of the whole or substantially the whole of the company's undertaking or property; but if directors contravene this requirement that such a disposal should be approved by the company in general meeting the transaction will not affect a purchaser for consideration who acquires the property without actual notice of the contravention. Clause 16 introduces a new section 133A which prohibits in subsection (1) thereof a company from making a loan to another company or to provide any security for a loan to another company if directors have an interest in the shares of the other company equal to one-fifth or more of the nominal value of its equity share capital; and also prohibits loans to persons who are members of the family of any of its directors. There are, however, certain specific exclusions in subsection (3) of this section which should be noted. The interest of a member of a director's family is treated as an interest of the director for the purposes of subsection (1). The purpose of this amendment is to close a loophole which at present exists under section 133 of the Act which prohibits a company from making loans to its directors. This section can be circumvented by making loans to a company in which a director of the lending company has effective control. The remaining major amendment to which I would wish to comment upon appears in clause 19 which amends section 179 dealing with take-overs. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the status of the Singapore Code on Take-overs and Mergers. The Code is not a statutory code but it is intended that it should have statutory backing and should have a locus standi in relation to the Government. For this reason it is expressly recognised by statute as is the Securities Industry Council which administers it. Although the Code is modelled on the City Code on Take-overs and Mergers, that Code has not been recognised in any legislation in the United Kingdom - it is regarded purely as a measure for voluntary self-regulation. The Government takes the view that for the Code to be really effective something more than this is needed although we still adhere to our conviction that, in the highly technical field of take-overs and mergers, a non-statutory code is a better way of dealing with this subject than by Act of Parliament. The new subsection makes it clear that breach of the Code is not a criminal offence. The Code may be revised from time to time and the public will be advised of such revision by notification in the Gazette. The Securities Industry Council may from time to time issue rulings on the interpretation of the Code and lay down rules of practice. It is not intended that these rulings should be challenged in the courts or that the Code will be subject to judicial interpretation for the Code is concerned with standards of conduct to be followed in take-overs and mergers. Members will also note that in clause 15 a provision is inserted in relation to the rulings of the Securities Industry Council and lays down that directors in the exercise of their powers are entitled to have regard to these rulings. The Explanatory Statement refers to the remaining amendments proposed in the Bill and I need not elaborate upon them. 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. 5.52 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Although this Bill would appear to introduce a large number of amendments to the Act, the bulk of them are merely consequential amendments that arise as a result of three major amendments that are proposed. These amendments appear in clause 2 (dealing with dealer's licences), in clause 19 (repealing Part VIII of the Act which provides for investment of stockbroker's funds) and in clause 23 which makes new provision for the Stock Exchange fidelity fund. I shall deal with these three topics in numerical order. At the time the Act was drafted persons could carry on the business of dealing in securities as a sole trader, as partner in a member firm or as director of a member company. This is no longer the position. Under the new Stock Exchange rules only persons who are directors of a member company can now be admitted as members of the Stock Exchange. The intention of clause 2 is, therefore, to reflect the position as it exists on the Stock Exchange by providing that a dealer's licence shall be granted only to a corporation. The great merit in this conceptual change is that corporations that deal in securities will be subject not only to the Act itself but also to the detailed provisions of the Companies Act (Cap. 185). This will undoubtedly operate to the advantage of the investing public because of the greater measure of control that can be exercised through the Companies Act. Under the existing provisions stockbrokers are required to take out an individual dealer's licence but under the new proposals they will be required to be licensed as dealers' representatives, that is to say, as representatives of the corporation that employs them or with which they have an arrangement as directors. The position of remisiers will remain unchanged in this regard for they also will be required to take out licences as dealers' representatives. The amendment to section 14 will have the additional advantage of streamlining the licensing provisions and make the administration of the licensing provisions and the regulations so much the easier. Accordingly, all references in the Act to dealers who are partners in a firm or sole dealers have been deleted, and the Act has been further amended in various respects to give effect to the new concept. Part VIII of the Act which deals with investment of stockbroker's funds is repealed though this will not affect the obligation of a dealer to maintain a trust account under other provisions of the Act. Experience has shown that the existing Part VIII presents serious practical difficulties to the Stock Exchange if it is to be implemented effectively. As required by the existing section 54, the member company must deposit with a stock exchange an amount that is not less than the prescribed part of the lowest balance in the company's trust account during the relevant period (i.e. 12 months). This formula is difficult to implement since it is not possible for the Stock Exchange to know the lowest balance unless a member company submits daily bank statements or cash books - this would place an unnecessary burden upon member companies and lead to all kinds of practical difficulties. Furthermore, the requirement in this Part that the Stock Exchange has to place its deposits from member companies in interest bearing accounts with banks creates further problems since money so deposited with the Stock Exchange are repayable upon demand. There is, in any event, no need, having regard to the new provision inserted in this Part of the Act dealing with fidelity funds, for interest derived from investment of deposits received by the Exchange to be credited to a fidelity fund. With regard to the fidelity fund provisions themselves, some significant changes are proposed. At the present time the Fidelity Fund of the Stock Exchange of Singapore stands at over $2 million though section 68 of the Act envisages an amount of $1 million. This large amount of fund money is derived mainly from the transfer from the fidelity fund that was held jointly by the Singapore and Malaysian Stock Exchange and not from contributions to the fund by individual stockbrokers. Having regard to the present state of fidelity fund as well as the proposals for increasing the fund by annual transfers from the Stock Exchange General Fund, Government considers that the requirement in section 67 that stockbrokers should make an annual contribution of $1,000 - which is, in any event, a comparatively small amount bearing in mind the total membership of the Exchange - to the fund, is not necessary as regards the existing Stock Exchange and inadequate if another stock exchange is created; for annual contributions are not likely to be sufficient to meet any liabilities that might arise due to the failure of even one member company. It is essential that a substantial amount of money should already be in a fidelity fund on its establishment. Under the new sections 67 and 68 a fidelity fund will consist of an amount that is not less than $2 million or such other sum as the Minister may by order determine. This fidelity fund will be increased annually by payments into it of a sum that is equal to 10 per cent or more of the net income of a stock exchange. If a fidelity fund falls below $2 million or such other sum as the Minister may determine, the Committee of a stock exchange shall take such steps to make up the deficiency as are provided for in section 68. If at any time a fidelity fund is not sufficient to meet liabilities, the Committee may impose a levy of such amount as it thinks fit on a member company but this levy must not exceed $100,000 in the aggregate (clause 24). The only other amendments that call for special mention appear in clause 33 which amends section 95 of the Act and in clause 3 which amends section 7. The amendment to section 95 empowers the Registrar to compound the less serious offences which are punishable only by a fine whether under the Act or under the Regulations. This provision is a standard one and is to be found in many of our Acts. The amendment proposed in clause 3 is designed to facilitate the administration of the Act in relation to the Minister's approval of amendments proposed to Stock Exchange Rules. The existing provision in section 7 has proved to be inappropriate and inconvenient for it does not allow sufficient time for the Minister to consider the matter, particularly where as in most instances the Securities Industry Council is asked to make its recommendations to the Minister on the proposed amendments. The time element referred to in the existing provision has accordingly been deleted. 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.

6.04 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in the name of the Minister for Law and National Development, 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 construction by Government of a jetty within the foreshore at Kranji Industrial Estate as shown coloured red on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE PLAN NO. 2/74", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.' Sir, hon. Members will recall that in June, 1965, this House approved the reclamation of about 213 acres of the swamp land in Kranji for development by the Jurong Town Corporation as an industrial estate for sawmilling. On completion of the reclamation, the reclaimed land was proclaimed as State land on 13th August, 1971, and subsequently alienated to the Jurong Town Corporation for 99 years to enable the Corporation, in turn, to sub-lease the land to the various sawmilling operators on 30-year leases. The land shown edged in red on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE PLAN NO. 2/74", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of Members, is one of the lots sub-leased by the Corporation to Kwang Maw Sawmill Limited. The Corporation has now applied for approval to construct a jetty measuring about 430 feet by 25 feet terminating in a platform about 50 feet by 50 feet as shown coloured red on the plan, to be used in conjunction with the sawmilling and woodworking operations of Kwang Maw Sawmill Limited. On approval of the construction of this jetty being given by this House, the Land Office will issue a foreshore lease to the Corporation pursuant to section 9 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270). 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 construction by Government of a jetty within the foreshore at Kranji industrial Estate as shown coloured red on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE PLAN NO. 2/74", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.

6.06 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in the name of the Minister for Law and National Development, 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 that portion of the foreshore at Labrador/Tanjong Berlayer containing an area of approximately 11.80 acres as shown coloured yellow on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/74", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.' Sir, the Port of Singapore Authority proposes to reclaim about 11.80 acres of the foreshore at Labrador/Tanjong Berlayer as shown coloured yellow on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/74", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members, for parkland development. The reclaimed area will be integrated with the adjoining land shown edged in green on the plan proposed for development by Government as the Labrador Public Park scheme to create an attractive promenade with sea frontage for the public with a portion thereof, about 5.5 acres (shown coloured yellow and edged in blue on the plan), to be used for port purposes on integration with the adjoining area shown edged in red on the plan. The cost of the reclamation is estimated at $2,152,000 and will be borne by the Port of Singapore Authority which will carry out the reclamation as agent of the Government. Fill for the reclamation will be obtained from the former Alexandra Brickworks' land at Pasir Panjang/Alexandra Road, where some 400,000 cubic yards of earth are readily available. 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 that portion of the foreshore at Labrador/Tanjong Berlayer containing an area of approximately 11.80 acres as shown coloured yellow on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/74", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been active for more than a week. May I take this opportunity of thanking Backbenchers for all their contributions and on behalf of each and every Member of the House, may I thank you, Sir, for listening to us for more than a week so patiently? Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed."

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." Adjourned accordingly at Nine minutes past Six o'clock p.m, to a date to be fixed.