Hansard, 1975-11-20

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 30 of the Constitution of Singapore, I have granted permission to the following Members to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Lee Khoon Choy (Hong Lim), Minister fo State for Foreign Affairs - from 22nd to 28th November, 1975. Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol) - from 23rd November to 8th December, 1975. Mr Ong Soo Chuan (Nee Soon), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs -from 24th November to 13th December, 1975. Mr Hon Sui Sen (Havelock), Minister for Finance - from 25th to 27th November, 1975. Mr Chan Chee Seng (Jalan Besar), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs - from 26th November to 12th December, 1975. Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang) from 26th November to 12th December, 1975. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Education what is the evaluation of the Primary Pilot Project which is now in its fourth year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Primary Pilot Project (PPP) for the teaching of English, Mathematics and Science at primary level was evaluated during the period August to November 1973. All the 774 pupils involved in the evaluation were at the end of their second year of primary education. Half were taught in schools using the Project materials and the other half were taught in schools using a variety of non-Project materials. The report shows that generally there was a trend for the mean scores of pupils taught in the Project schools to be significantly better than those in non-Project schools.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what is the Ministry's conclusion? What is the verdict on the Project? Is it intended to continue with the Project and eventually to incorporate it into the Education system?

The answer is yes, Sir.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Education when the last refresher course for teachers was held; how many teachers completed that course; how many teachers of five years and more of teaching experience have not attended any refresher course todate; and how does such a course attempt to orientate teachers to the social and economic priorities of the State.

Sir, refresher courses, also known as in-service courses, are conducted throughout the year. Over the last two years, 4,105 teachers attended various in-service courses, averaging 50 hours each in duration. This represents approximately 35%, or 17 1/2% per year, of the teachers with five years or more teaching experience. Though no records of the correlation between a teacher's years of service and his attendance at in-service courses were kept before 1974, the present trend indicates that there is a six-year cycle in which every teacher will be given an opportunity for in-service training. The last in-service course attended by 38 participants ended on 7th November 1975. Currently, four courses involving about 480 participants are in progress. All these courses help equip teachers to perform better at their jobs.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Education how the Education Development Officers in the Ministry of Education and principals in the schools assist in developing the education of the school-going generation to ensure that the latter develop attitudes to employment which collectively benefit the State.

Sir, it has always been one of the objectives of the Ministry of Education to inculcate the right attitudes and values in our pupils, such as the right attitude towards employment and correct work ethics. Education Development Officers and school principals have always been working in close co-operation to achieve these objectives through, among other things, regular assembly talks, civic lessons, extra-curricular activities and educational visits to relevant organisations. In addition, the introduction of the subject Education for Living in schools is another means towards achieving our objective. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that the home, the neighbourhood and the society have as great, if not a greater influence than the school, in developing prevailing mores, wholesome attitudes and sound values.

asked the Minister for Finance what progress has been made in the investigations into the affairs of Haw Par and in particular (a) what further evidence has been obtained to substantiate the allegations against those former directors of the Company who had participated in Spydar Securities Ltd; (b) what steps have been taken to ensure the co-operation of the authorities in Kuala Lumpur, London and Hong Kong; (c) whether he will inform the House of the reason for the resignation of Mr G. Starforth Hill as an Inspector and whether Mr Hill's resignation would in any way impede the course of the investigation; (d) whether the validity of the loan of US$29 million from Slater Walker Securities Lid to Haw Par is being investigated; and (e) what steps the Board of Directors of Haw Par have taken, or propose to take, with a view, to strengthening the management of the Company.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not yet in a position to report to the House the progress made as the investigations into the affairs of Haw Par are still continuing. The Inspector appointed by me under the Companies Act to investigate these affairs has informed me that he intends to submit an interim report by the end of November. What further evidence he has against those former directors of the company who participated in Spydar Securities Ltd should be known when the report has been submitted to me. I have been given so far only copies of a statement by Mr Slater explaining the circumstances of Spydar's formation, and one or two other documents. However, after five months of investigations, he should have sufficient material upon which to base his interim report which will deal with the affairs of Spydar Securities Ltd and a number of other crucial matters. Members are aware that there have also been other investigations which have not been initiated by me. They include those by the Stock Exchange of Singapore and by the Commercial Crimes Division of the Police Force. These investigations are time consuming and will not be completed for quite some time. On steps to ensure the co-operation of authorities in other jurisdictions, I am happy to inform the House that officers of the Attorney-General and the Police Force have received co-operation from the authorities in Hong Kong, where some of the matters have had to be investigated. There has also been consultation between the relevant authorities in London and Singapore, direct as well as through the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Singapore. The Government of Malaysia has also been informed of the circumstances which led to my ordering an investigation into the affairs of Haw Par. I am sure there is now better understanding of the reasons why we had to take steps to preserve the integrity of our financial institutions and to protect the interests of the smaller shareholders. With regard to the resignation of Mr G. Starforth Hill as an Inspector, he has given his reasons for his resignation in his letter of 27th October, 1975, which has been published. I do not expect Mr Hill's resignation to cause any delay in the investigations. Honourable Members will be aware of the changes that have taken place recently in the Board of Directors of Haw Par. The five new directors announced that the Board will examine the propriety of all claims against the Company. Before the resignation of Mr Slater from Slater Walker Securities Ltd, certain offers in relation to the loan of US$29 million to Haw Par were made through two merchant banks. These were not considered satisfactory and were not accepted. There is possibility of a settlement between the new boards of Haw Par and Slater Walker Securities Ltd. So it is better that I say no more on this subject. If there is no settlement, then the wrangles inside and outside the courts will provide everyone with the details of some of the ingenious schemes and complicated transactions that the Slater Walker group carried on in the Far East. I am not able to say what steps have been taken or will be taken to strengthen the management of Haw Par. This is a matter for the Board of Directors of the Company. I have confidence in the new Chairman and his colleagues on the Board and I have no doubt they will find solutions to management and other problems facing the Company.

Sir, I am just wondering whether the Minister will inform the House of the interim report from the Inspector when it is available, or whether it would be made public immediately?

Sir, when I do receive the report, I will consider it in the light of the information contained in that report. Some of the information may very well be confidential and of a nature relevant to the negotiations with Slater Walker Securities Ltd. In those circumstances it may be possible that the report cannot be made available immediately.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The amendments that are proposed in the Bill are necessary to ensure confidentiality to persons who seek treatment relating to family planning in any institution or clinic maintained or managed by the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board. This amendment complements those provisions contained in the Voluntary Sterilisation and Abortion Acts which also prohibit persons from disclosing relevant matters unless the person concerned gives express consent. The same penalties are also provided for in this Bill. Since the inception of the Board, the number of people seeking family planning advice or treatment has risen from 30,410 in 1966 to 229,365 as at 1974. This represents 87.6% of married women in the reproductive age group making the Board the biggest institution from which treatment or advice is sought on family planning matters. It is important that the confidence of such persons is maintained and they need not have any doubts as to the confidentiality of the treatment they seek from the Board. 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-[Toh Chin Chye]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Singapore has faced a shortage of dentists for a long time with little hope of changing the present dentist population ratio of 1 : 5,500 to a more desirable ratio of 1: 2,500 which would meet the demands for dental treatment by the population fairly adequately, unless the number of dentists is considerably increased. There are at present 249 qualified dentists in Division I of the Dentists Register and 171 unqualified dentists in Division II of the Dentists Register. In addition there are also 230 dental nurses who provide systematic dental treatment for about half the primary school population of 360,000 children. Because of the shortage of dentists a scheme has been launched this year to train a new category of dental operators, known as Dental Therapists. They attend a three-year course, at the end of which they should be able to perform straightforward dental procedures such as extractions, fillings and making dentures. Twenty student dental therapists have been enrolled this year and from next year onwards 40 student dental therapists will be enrolled each year. Dental therapists, however, will not be permitted to carry out surgical operative procedures on the soft tissues and bone of the jaws. For the first 10 years after the completion of training, dental therapists will be provisionally registered to work only under the supervision of qualified dental surgeons either in government dental clinics or private dental practices. After 10 years of service under qualified dental surgeons and subject to their passing a suitable qualifying examination, they will be allowed to work on their own as registered dentists but restricted to the class of work for which they have been trained. They will then be placed on a separate list in the Dentists Register, distinct from Division I (qualified) and Division II (unqualified) dentists. The Dentists Registration (Amendment) Bill seeks to provide for provisional registration for these dental therapists in the first 10 years of their service and their enrolment in the Register of Dentists if they pass a qualifying examination. Provision is also necessary to prohibit dental therapists from performing certain dental procedures. The opportunity is also taken in the Bill to make changes in the Dentists Registration Act. They are administrative in character and are summarised in the explanatory statement attached to the Bill. In the first recruitment exercise carried out this year there were 167 qualified applicants, of whom 24 were male and 143 female. They were given a manual dexterity test. Twenty trainees were finally appointed, 16 of them were females and four males. I ought to add that there was no significant difference between the number of males and females who passed the manual dexterity test. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 2.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Hon. Members are no doubt aware that the Regulation of Employment Act was enacted in 1966 to regulate the employment of foreign workers in the Republic. The objective was to control the flow of such workers into our country to ensure that their employment contributes to the social and economic development of our society. Under the Act, foreign workers, principally those from Malaysia whose monthly salaries are not more than $750, are required to apply for a work permit before they start work. The Work Permits Office has discovered certain inadequacies in the Act in nearly 10 years of its operation. This Bill seeks to amend certain provisions of the Act with a view to overcoming these shortcomings. The Ministry has discovered that some work permit holders are working in occupations other than those specified in their respective work permits. The Work Permits Office has, for example, found work permit holders working as clerks when the permit has been issued to them to work as factory operators. Legally this is not an offence as section 8 of the present Act prohibits the employment of an employee or contract worker only if he does not have a work permit. This inadequacy in the Act reduces the effectiveness of our control of foreign workers in the Republic. Clause 2 of the Bill therefore seeks to amend section 8 of the present Act to prohibit any employer from engaging any person who has been issued with a work permit in any capacity other than in accordance with the conditions contained in the work permit. Sir, the Regulation of Employment Act, as it now stands, does not cover self-employed occupations like insurance agents, canvassers, salesmen, commission agents and others. The employment of foreigners in these occupations has social and economic ramifications. The Ministry has found it necessary at times to regulate administratively foreigners taking up certain self-employed occupations. To enable the Ministry to have the power to bring such persons within the Regulation of Employment Act, clause 3 of the Bill seeks to amend section 8 to empower the Minister from time to time by Gazette notification to prohibit any non-citizen from engaging in any trade, occupation or other activity carried on for the purposes of gain unless he has obtained a work permit for that purpose. The Work Permits Office has also found that some employers and employees has connived to furnish false information with a view to seeking approval for their applications for work permits. False details, for example, have been provided on types of job and experience and qualification of the applicants. The giving of such false information is not an offence under the present Act. This practice must be discouraged to enable us to have better control of the recruitment of foreign workers for work in Singapore. Clause 5 therefore seeks to amend section 14 of the Act to make it an offence for any person, whether employer or employee, to make a false statement in the application for a work permit. Sir, the Ministry has also taken the opportunity to introduce two administrative measures to improve the operation of the Act. The first, contained in clause 4 of the Bill, seeks to amend section 11 of the Act to provide for the levy of a fee of $5 for the replacement of a lost, destroyed or defaced work permit. This will encourage proper custody of work permit cards. The other, contained in clause 6 of the Bill, seeks to introduce a new section empowering the Commissioner for Employment to compound any offence committed under the Act by accepting from the person reasonably suspected of committing an offence a sum not exceeding $100. The intention is to expedite the meting out of penalties to those who have infringed the law as well as eliminate the time-consuming process involved in preparing for prosecution in court especially in cases of minor offences. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek a point of clarification from the Minister of State. Clause 2 of the Bill says that: `No employer or contractor shall employ an employee or contract worker, as the case may he, otherwise than in accordance with the conditions contained in the work permit.' Sir, what happens if an employer, who originally engages a worker as a factory hand, subsequently promotes the employee to a higher grade, say, a clerical post, because of his efficiency? It appears that there is no provision in this amendment Bill for appropriate endorsements on the work permit of the employee concerned.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in that case a fresh application will have to be made, because the original work permit only allows the person to be employed as a factory operator. If he wants to work as a clerk, it is a different job entirely.

Sir, I would like to seek further clarification. In that case the employer must first terminate the services of the employee before he can submit a fresh application.

Sir, I would say that the employer should put in an application before promoting his employee.

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 Sia Kah Hui]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill seeks to introduce a number of amendments to the Employment Act, details of which are summarised in the explanatory statement. I now propose to elaborate on some of the more important clauses in the amendment Bill. Hon. Members will no doubt recall that in April 1972 the National Wages Council recommended that the existing bonus system in the private sector be converted into a system of an annual wage supplement supplemented by either a negotiable bonus or annual wage increases and that the maximum in regard to bonuses be raised from one to three months' wages. These recommendations were accepted by the Government in the interest of rational and orderly wage increases. Section 46 of the Employment Act was then amended in July 1972 incorporating these recommendations. Under the present section 46 of the Act, a trade union of employees is entitled to negotiate for the payment of either both an annual wage supplement and an annual bonus or both an annual wage supplement and annual wage increases. An employer is given the right to make an option between negotiating for the payment of both an annual wage supplement and a bonus or both an annual wage supplement and annual wage increase. He will, however, be bound by his choice of option for the duration of any award of collective agreement which may be made regarding these payments. An employer who cannot afford to pay any of the aforesaid combinations may offer to negotiate to pay an annual wage supplement or bonus or annual wage increase. The level of annual wage supplement payable by the employer who has paid annual bonuses to his employees prior to 1972 is to be the equivalent of the average of the bonuses paid in respect of the three years preceding the commencement of the Act, that is, 1972, or to the last annual bonus paid, whichever is the greater, subject to a maximum amount equivalent to three months' wages of his employees, except that where such bonuses were based on exceptional trading results or increased productivity which the employer finds have diminished to a significant degree, the employer may negotiate for a lower quantum of the annual wage supplement to be paid. If an employer has not paid any bonus to his employees or has paid a bonus of less than one month's wages before the commencement of this Act, the annual wage supplement payable by him shall not exceed one month's wages of his employees. However, contrary to the provisions of section 46, a number of employers have at the request of unions attempted or in some cases even paid annual wage supplements in excess of the levels prescribed under section 46. In a number of cases the additional annual wage supplements paid took the form of ang pows and ex gratia payments. This is an undesirable situation which, if unchecked, can lead us back to the pre-1972 situation of disputes over bonuses and ex gratia payments and disorderly wage increases. In fact, the Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress, in a speech to the NTUC Ordinary Delegates Conference in December 1974 said that, and I quote: `To take the lid off on bonus payments once again, would only be to provide a recipe for an industrial free-for-all.' He went on to tell the Conference that "this must not be allowed to happen, least of all in the current climate of the economy". Mr Speaker, Sir, it is essential for us to develop a sound national wage system based on the one recommended to us by the National Wages Council in 1972. A system of orderly wage increases will contribute greatly to a right investment climate in our Republic. Members are all too well aware of the need for us to make greater efforts to attract investment into Singapore. The years ahead are going to he different from the last five years. We are unlikely to be able to repeat our years of double digit economic growth. We simply cannot afford undisciplined and chaotic wage increase demands to hamper our efforts to achieve maximum development in a period of comparatively reduced growth. Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 2 of the Bill is, therefore, aimed at preventing the situation of the type I have just described. There are three important aspects of clause 2 of the Bill. Firstly, it is now mandatory for employers and trade unions of employees to observe the levels of annual wage supplement which have been frozen on 1st July, 1972. Secondly, employers may choose to pay either both an annual wage supplement and an annual bonus or both an annual wage supplement and annual wage increase. It will be an offence if the annual wage supplement, annual bonus and annual wage increase are all paid or asked to be paid at the same time. The employer alone shall decide which of the two combinations he shall opt for. It is an offence for a trade union or anyone to ask for payments in variance of the option which the employer has chosen. Lastly, employers may only, with the prior written permission of the Minister for Finance, pay any additional annual wage supplement in excess of the frozen quantum. Since the introduction of the Bill in the House on 19th August, 1975, 1 have received a number of representations from organisations like the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, the National Trades Union Congress and the Singapore Employers' Federation. As a result of some of these representations I have decided to introduce an amendment to clause 2 of the Bill. The amendment will be dealt with later at the Committee stage. At the moment I shall only deal with the other representations. The National Trades Union Congress has requested that amendments be made to the Bill to allow for the continued payment of signatory bonuses and ex gratia payments which are made upon the signing of a collective agreement. The NTUC has argued that such payments are not really intended to evade the provisions of the Employment Act relating to the payment of the annual wage supplement or bonus. My Ministry is of the view that such onetime lump sum payments are not an annual wage supplement or bonus payments and are, therefore, outside the ambit of section 46 of the Act. I see no objection to such payments being made if they are for good reasons, such as compensation for change of annual incremental date, or payment in lieu of actual amount of arrears of wage adjustments, or payment in lieu of arrears of overtime arising from backdating of new salary scales. However, such payments should not be made for the purposes of inducement for signing the collective agreement. Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall now deal with clause 8 of the Bill. The Report of the Committee on Crime and Delinquency reveals that juvenile crime and delinquency has increased in the Republic during the period 1968 to 1972. The Report also discloses that the majority of youths who flout the law are school leavers and that the tendency towards criminal or delinquent behaviour is negligible until the age of 13 and strongest at the ages of 15-16, 17-19 and 20-21. The Committee is of the view that one of the solutions to this problem is the adoption of measures to enable our school leavers to be trained and be gainfully employed. This will not only benefit the youths concerned but also provide a source of supply of trained workers for the economy. The Government has since taken note of this recommendation of the Committee, and the proposed amendments to the Employment Act is to allow youthful school leavers to be trained and be gainfully employed. Under clause 8, children who are 12 and below 14 years old will in future be allowed to be gainfully employed in industrial undertakings as apprentices under any apprentice schemes approved and supervised by the Industrial Training Board. Under the existing provisions of the Employment Act, young persons between the ages of 14 and 16 are required to obtain certificates of registration from the Commissioner for Labour before they may be allowed to work in industrial undertakings. Clause 9 of the Bill seeks to repeal Part IX of the Employment Act dealing with such registration so as to facilitate the speedy employment of young persons in the 12-16 age group. While measures are proposed to provide for the training and gainful employment of the young, it is necessary to continue to protect the health, safety and welfare of the young in the 12-16 age group who will be working in industrial undertakings. Clause 6 empowers the Minister for Labour to make provisions to that effect in the form of regulations to be gazetted after this Bill has been passed. It is therefore proposed to repeal all sections relating to conditions of employment of children and young persons in the Act and incorporate them in the regulations. The National Trades Union Congress has written to the Ministry pointing out that with these amendments the number of workers between the ages of 12 and 18 will become greater and suggesting that an amendment be made to the Trade Unions Act to allow such workers trade union membership but without the right to hold office or to vote at general meetings of members. My Ministry is presently looking into the question of amending the Trade Unions Act and will take this suggestion into consideration. Under Part XVI of the Employment Act, the Commissioner is empowered to conduct inquiries into claims lodged by employees in respect of matters relating to terms and conditions of their employment. Such inquiries are informal. Legal technicalities and forms are avoided as far as possible. This is in order to achieve speedy settlement in the interests of the parties concerned. In the experience of the Ministry, employers are usually represented by lawyers whereas the employees are not. We have found that the presence of lawyers at these informal inquiries has tended to formalise the character of the proceedings leading to unnecessary procedural complications, thereby delaying the completion of the hearings. In many cases it has also made the parties involved less amenable to conciliation and amicable settlement of claims. It must be emphasised that, in the majority of cases before the Commissioner, the dispute is purely one of facts. Points of law are not usually at issue and therefore the presence of legal counsel at such inquiries is not necessary. There are also similar provisions prohibiting legal representation under sections 27 and 63 of the Industrial Relations Act which include representation in negotiations at conciliation meetings chaired by conciliation officers of the Labour Ministry. Clause 13 of the Bill therefore seeks to achieve this but allows an employee to be represented by an officer of the trade union of which the employee is a member and an employer to be represented by one of his employees who will usually be the Personnel Manager. The Singapore Employers' Federation has requested that if an employer chooses instead to be represented by an officer of the trade union of which he is a member in the proceedings before the Commissioner, he should be allowed such representation. The Ministry sees no objection to this proposal and will administratively allow an employer this option. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.20 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment Bill. This Bill will look after the interests of our workers better. It is a judicious measure because there is provision for employers to continue to pay their employees more than what is normally paid so long as they do not go against certain restrictions contained in the Act. Sir, this situation is just like what happened in the past. In those days it was the traditional practice of commercial establishments to give extra bonuses to their employees if they had made large profits in the financial year under review. Therefore, if employers want to give their employees more bonuses than normally provided, we should afford them this privilege. In fact, the Minister mentioned in his speech that, provided the employers do not go against the restrictions contained in the Act, they are allowed to give the employees extra bonuses. In this way we can give our workers more benefits, and I certainly will lend my full support to the Bill because it will not only promote better relationship between labour and capital but it also will encourage the workers to work harder to increase productivity. So this is a very good measure. Although there are certain provisions, generally speaking we should support those which are beneficial to the workers. As regards the provision for the training of our young people, this is also a very good measure because our young people will become a new force in our industrial development. From being semi-skilled workers at the end of their training, they will finally become skilled workers able to contribute to our national economy. I feel sure that all parents and guardians will welcome this Bill which provides for the training of young people. 3.24 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Employment (Amendment) Bill affects, among other things, the provisions of section 46, 46(A) and 46(B), which were first enacted to give effect to the implementation of the recommendations of the National Wages Council. The NTUC is not only a party to the NWC's deliberations but it has also actively worked for the setting up of a system of regulating orderly increases in wages. In making my comments on the present Bill, I have discussed with my colleagues in the NTUC, namely, the Members for Moulmein, Telok Blangah, Bukit Ho Swee, Kallang, Toa Payoh, Aljunied and Potong Pasir, and they have agreed with what I am going to say. My concern, whether as a Member of this House or as the President of the NTUC, is that certain provisions in this Bill may be unduly prejudicial to the interest of the trade union movement and to the rights of workers to be organised into trade unions. It is appreciated that the present Bill is consequential to the earlier amending Act of 1972 and seeks to clarify and define further the respective rights of workers and employers in relation to payment of annual wage supplement, annual bonus and annual wage increases now contained in the Act. My fear is that certain provisions in the Bill may, without the intention of the Government, work to the serious disadvantage of the trade union movement. The provisions of the Bill I am referring to are those set out in clauses 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill proposes to include a new subsection (13) to section 46 of the Employment Act, making it obligatory for an employer to apply to the Minister for Finance for written permission whenever he desires to pay any sum of money additional to the prescribed annual wage supplement. In other words, an employer who desires to pay more than one month or three months of annual wage supplement, as the case may be, must obtain the permission of the Minister for Finance to do so. That requirement, in itself, is not a radical departure from the present law regulating the payment of annual wage supplement and other benefits. If an employer is willing and can afford to pay over and above the prescribed limits of annual wage supplement under the Employment Act, it is a simple matter for such an employer to write to the Minister for Finance for the necessary permission to do so. For such an employer and his employees, the provision of the proposed subsection (13) of section 46 may not make any practical difference. But where an employer is not willing to pay or admits that he cannot afford to pay and seeks to embarrass the trade union representing its employees, the provision of the proposed subsection (13) may provide him with an opportunity to create mischief and misunderstanding at the expense of the trade union movement. It is not too difficult to imagine a situation where such an employer would protest to the union in negotiations over wages and other terms and conditions of service that he would like to pay more than the prescribed annual wage supplement except that he is prevented from doing so by the Employment Act. And as a gesture of his sincerity, he would even send a letter to the Minister for Finance, carbon copied to the union, but it would be so worded as to convey the impression that the application is made with reluctance. A more serious situation may arise where an employer may be willing and can afford to pay a more generous annual wage supplement or an additional sum of money to his employees, so long as they are not represented by any trade union. A trade union, of course, in anticipating the reaction of such an employer against the representation of his employees, can claim for higher wages to offset whatever loss its members may suffer by way of annual wage supplement or any other additional payments. The snag is that the workers may allow themselves to be provoked or irritated by insinuations that they would not have lost such benefits if they had never joined a trade union. As I see it, one of the more serious defects of this Bill is that it seeks to prohibit employees from asking for payment of and to prohibit employers from paying any sum of money over and above the prescribed limits of annual wage supplement or annual bonus. But there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an employer, who is unwilling or unable to afford to pay over and above the prescribed limits for annual wage supplement or annual bonus, from falsely claiming that he is willing or can afford to pay over and above the prescribed limits only if it were not for the Employment Act. Such malice or mischief by some unscrupulous employers can have a demoralising effect on workers. The provisions of clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Bill seek to make it easier for young persons and children to be gainfully employed in the Republic. Though the Government is repealing certain provisions for the protection of the interests and welfare of young persons and children, I have no doubts in my mind that the Government will reproduce corresponding provisions in the Regulations to be made under the Bill. The provisions of the various sections to be repealed by the Bill have become outdated and their continued retention may work against, rather than for, the general interest and welfare of young persons and children. In that respect the relevant provisions of the Bill are to be welcome. I do not think that any person, whether inside or outside this House, can validly object to any statutory provision to make it easier for young persons and children to receive proper training and acquire suitable experience to become skilled artisans or technicians under the supervision of either the Ministry of Education or the Industrial Training Board. From the trade union's point of view, the provisions of the Bill governing the training or apprenticeship of young persons and children are desirable in themselves, except for the nagging anxiety regarding the question of trade union representation for young persons and children. It may be contended that any training or apprenticeship scheme duly approved by the Ministry of Education or the Industrial Training Board would not lend itself to abuse by employers and that the terms of an apprenticeship agreement are incompatible with the principles of collective bargaining. If it is the fear of any person, inside or outside this House, that representation by trade unions would upset the proper conduct of any apprenticeship scheme, I can assure him that the NTUC would not tolerate any attempt by any of its affiliated unions to meddle with the terms of service set out in an apprenticeship agreement duly approved by the Ministry of Education or the Industrial Training Board. But it should not be forgotten that under the Employment Act apprentices have been accorded the right to be represented by a trade union, even if such representation may be confined to safeguarding the safety and welfare of apprentices. The concern of NTUC is not directed so much to the young persons and children who enjoy the benefit of a training scheme or apprenticeship scheme duly approved by the Ministry of Education or the Industrial Training Board, but to those young persons and children who are employed in small private establishments without the benefit of any proper training scheme or any apprenticeship agreement. Such young persons and children would be completely at the tender mercy of their respective employers. I have no doubts that the Ministry of Labour may include suitable provisions in the proposed Regulations and instruct the Labour Inspectorate especially to look after the interest and welfare of such young persons and children. It would, however, make matters easier for all concerned if the trade unions are permitted also to look after the interest and welfare of such young persons and children. As the law now stands, it prohibits trade unions from representing workers below the age of 18 years. But with the enactment of this Bill, it is envisaged that the number of workers between the ages of 12 and 18 years may considerably increase in proportion to the total number of workers in the Republic. It is, therefore, desirable that such workers should be allowed to be represented by trade unions. Any fear that young persons and children, because of their tender years, may lend themselves to exploitation by trade unions with ulterior motives, may be put at rest by the imposition of conditions that young workers below the age of 18 years may not participate in the management of a trade union or in the conduct of any industrial action. As it is, if this Bill is adopted by this House without a corresponding amendment to the Trade Unions Act to reduce the minimum age of trade union membership from 18 years to a lower age, a situation may arise which may lend itself to exploitation by unscrupulous employers. There is nothing, for instance, in this Bill or in the Employment Act to prevent an employer from retrenching or terminating the service of young workers as soon as they have attained the age of 18 years. In this way, an unscrupulous employer may assure himself a constant supply of sweat-shop labour which cannot be organised into trade unions. In making this request to the Minister for Labour to consider more seriously the reduction of the statutory minimum age for trade union membership, I have been encouraged by the provision of clause 13 of the Bill which seeks to rule out the participation of advocates and solicitors in proceedings before the Commissioner for Labour and which seeks to assure a trade union the right to represent its members in such proceedings. 3.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Member for Boon Teck, who is also the President of NTUC. I agree with what he has said, but I wish to make a further comment on the Bill. In clause 2 of the Bill, the proposed paragraph (c) of subsection (10) of section 46 of the Employment Act seeks to make it illegal for any sum of money to be paid in addition to the annual wage supplement as set out in a contract of service or in a collective agreement. I have no doubt that this particular provision is intended to rectify the provision in the amending Act of 1972 regarding the upper limits for the payment of annual wage supplement. But the fact is that between 1st July, 1972, and today many contracts of service and collective agreements do provide for the payment of additional sums of money over and above the prescribed annual wage supplement. There are many reasons for such a situation to arise. One reason is that an employer wishing to expedite the signing of a collective agreement may propose an ex gratia payment to induce a trade union to forgo some of its claims and so conclude the negotiation for the collective agreement. Another reason is that an employer may prefer giving such ex gratia payments to committing himself to a permanent modification of the wage scales of his employees. The point I wish to make is that whatever sum of money that has been agreed to be paid in a contract of service or a collective agreement in addition to the prescribed annual wage supplement is not deliberately made for the purpose of avoiding the relevant provision of the Employment Act regarding the payment of annual wage supplement or annual bonus. That being the case, it will be rather difficult for a trade union to explain to its members how the situation has come about, that it is permitted for such an additional sum of money to be paid in October 1975 but not in December 1975, since such additional sum of money has been freely and voluntarily agreed to in the course of negotiations between the employer and the trade union. I express the hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the effect of the provision of the proposed paragraph (c) of subsection (10), section 46, in clause 2 of the Bill, on the morale of workers who have conscientiously and rigorously conducted themselves within the framework of legitimate industrial relation practices in the Republic. Sir, I feel strongly on the points that I have just expressed. It is not because of the possible effect of the proposed provision on the members of my own union but because of its effect on organised workers in general, particularly those working in the pioneer manufacturing establishments. I am given to understand that a considerable number of such firms, because of their healthy financial position and their willingness to provide incentives to the workers and not because of any pressure brought to hear upon them by the union, are willing to pay and have, in fact, paid more than the prescribed limit of annual wage supplement to their employees. It will require no effort for the management to reconcile itself to any statutory prohibition against the payment of such additional sum of money and to apply for permission to make such payment. But for the workers to reconcile themselves to the suspense of waiting again for the employer to pay the additional sum of money previously negotiated for and agreed to may require super-human efforts. In the light of that consideration, I hope that the provision of the proposed paragraph (c) of subsection (10) be reworded to make it more equitable to workers who have legitimately come to enjoy such greater benefits than would be permitted in the Bill as it stands at present. 3.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the sentiments expressed by the Member for Boon Teck as well as to give my support to the Bill. However, Sir, I would like to elaborate a little on clause 6 of the Bill which seeks to repeal and to re-enact sections 68 and 69 of the Employment Act. Clause 6 seeks to allow children of 12 years and above to accept gainful employment in any industrial undertaking. Sir, I have had on several occasions both inside and outside this House mentioned that there is a dire need for the Ministry of Education to look into the question of accommodating students, who could not go beyond the primary or secondary level, in vocational training institutions. Sir, today we are faced with a situation in which there are many thousands of children whom we call school dropouts. But I would not term them as "dropouts" if, in the light of this Employment (Amendment) Bill, children above the age of 12 years may obtain gainful employment. Sir, in this respect I would like to suggest to the Minister for Education that in the various courses organised by the Industrial Training Board and conducted by the vocational institutes there should be full encouragement for the mastering of skills at the basic level. This point has been amply elaborated on by my Friend, the Member for Boon Teck. However, what I cannot understand is that when I made the suggestion that the ITB should conduct courses leading to certain levels of skills, it was flatly turned down almost the day after my suggestion was made. And here, Sir, we have this Employment (Amendment) Bill which seeks to do just that. The Member for Boon Teck mentioned just now that he and his trade union colleagues are concerned with this provision for children above the age of 12 to be gainfully employed in any industrial undertaking. I too am concerned. To me, this would mean that certain skills have got to be acquired at a tender age, and there are various types of skills available to fit into this particular scheme. I do not think there will be exploitation of young labour by employers because certain skills are rather specialised in nature and its supply may be limited. In the long run, the child concerned will benefit from his apprenticeship or from his course of training. It is the ultimate that Singapore looks forward to because we do not have, apart from human resources, other sources to rely on. Therefore, every person in Singapore, especially the so-called dropouts and their parents, should realise that everyone must, work for a living and, as the Prime Minister has said, "The world does not owe us a living."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a very minor point to make on this amendment Bill. If this Bill is passed, it appears that if an employer wishes to pay a bigger bonus or a bigger annual wage supplement he should apply for approval from the Finance Minister to do so. The Finance Minister is in charge of the economy of the State. If the economy is bad, the Finance Minister might say, "All right, this year we allow the workers an increase of 5%." But why should the Finance Minister be in charge of the economy of a commercial organisation? If at all approval is necessary, I would say that they should get approval from the Prime Minister who heads the Cabinet. Industrial matters come within the portfolio of the Minister for Labour. So it appears to me that it is a case of passing the buck from one Minister to another. I do not see why this particular matter has been passed on to the Minister for Finance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Member for Boon Teck, and I agree with the points raised by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee. I would like to add that from my own personal knowledge I am aware that in quite a number of establishments the managements and the respective trade unions have agreed on the payment of additional sums of money over and above the prescribed limits for annual wage supplement or bonus. Such payments have not been made for the purpose of nullifying the provisions of the Employment Act regulating the payment of annual wage supplement or annual bonus. They have been made solely for the purpose of giving effect to the interests of the employer rather than the interests of the workers. For that reason, Mr Speaker, Sir, lam of the view that if it is not possible for the Minister for Labour to accede to the request of my colleague to modify the provision of paragraph (c) of subsection (10) as set out in clause 2 of the Bill, then perhaps the Minister would consider changing the cut-off date from 1st July 1972 to, say, 1st July 1975. As it stands now at present, the Bill if adopted by this House without any changes at all would undoubtedly have a retrospective effect in relation to the payment of such additional sums of money as contained in collective agreements. In other words, the moment this Bill is adopted without any modification, any provision in a collective agreement to pay an additional sum of money over and above the prescribed annual wage supplement would be nullified, regardless of the fact that the agreement had been concluded two years before the implementation of this Bill. If the provision of paragraph (c) of subsection (10) can be adopted without any retrospective effect, it will help to soften the impact of the Bill on the workers even if there had been no modification whatsoever to this provision.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the various points raised by the Member for Boon Teck have, in fact, been covered in my speech earlier on. I think he is unduly concerned over the fact that some employers may seek refuge behind the proposed amendments for their unwillingness or inability to pay a higher annual wage supplement to members of a union. Any employer who is foolish enough to resort to such a tactic will find that he will have a lot of questions to answer and an unsympathetic Government to contend with. The Member has also expressed concern that some unscrupulous employers may offer their workers a more generous annual wage supplement in return for not joining a trade union. I am afraid this is a problem that all unions have to face up to at all times. This is not a problem peculiar to Singapore. Unions must expect such divisive tactics from anti-union employers. It is up to union officials to expose the true intentions of such employers and to convince the workers that their long-term interest lies in joining the union. I wish to reiterate once again that the question of bonuses has been disposed of in 1972 when amendments were made to the Employment Act based on the recommendations of the National Wages Council. The quantum of bonuses then prevailing was converted into annual wage supplements and frozen at various levels as prescribed in section 46. The Government has no intention to reopen the whole question of bonuses again as it would, in the words of the Secretary-General, NTUC, mean "the resurgence of the previous bonus chaos in Singapore's wage structure by providing a recipe for an industrial free-for-all". Instead of labouring on the question of bonuses or additional payments or ex gratia payments, it would be more helpful if the unions would dwell more on the question of a decent wage for an honest day's work rather than expecting extra payments without putting in extra efforts. If, as it is claimed, there are generous employers who are willing and can afford to pay a more generous wage supplement or ex gratia payment to their employees, the initiative for such payments should come from the employers themselves. Concerning the interests and welfare of young persons, I can assure the Member for Boon Teck that the Government is as interested as he is to see that there is no exploitation of young persons in employment. In a small compact country like Singapore, with a highly literate and well informed population and a vigilant Government, it is doubtful that any employer can get away with exploitation of young persons without being discovered and punished. However, this does not mean that the trade unions cannot play a useful role in keeping a check on possible abuses by unscrupulous employers. I shall, therefore, take the suggestion of the Member for Boon Teck into consideration when amending the Trade Unions Act.

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

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

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 40, at end, to add -"(15) Nothing in paragraph (c) of subsection (10), or in subsection (13), of this section shall he construed as applying to any payments made by an employer to an employee under a productivity incentive scheme."; and ". Since the introduction of the Bill in this House on 19th August, 1975, 1 have received a number of representations on matters covered therein. The Chinese Chamber of Commerce expressed concern that, under the proposed amendments to section 46 of the Employment Act, the Chinese business community would not be able to continue with its traditional wage system, which is characterised by relatively low wages and high bonuses. The National Trades Union Congress has also made several proposals with regard to the Bill. One of these is that the amendments proposed to section 46 of the Employment Act should not be extended to payments made under any productivity incentive scheme. It was of the view that unless this was done employers would be prohibited from operating an incentive or productivity scheme. This would frustrate Government's policy on productivity of labour and deprive employees of accrued benefits relating to existing incentive payments. Mr Speaker, Sir, it has never been the intention of the Ministry to bring the traditional Chinese wage system or productivity incentive schemes within the proposed amendments to section 46 of the Employment Act. The continued operation of the traditional Chinese wage system, especially in business based on family or kinship ties, would in my view not disrupt orderly wage developments. As regards productivity incentive schemes, the Government has consistently urged that firms and factories must seek to increase their productivity. The Ministry has, through the National Productivity Board, already begun work with employers and unions on this objective. However, it is necessary that some incentives should be provided for increased productivity. The proposed amendment to clause 2 will therefore meet the concern of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce as well as of the NTUC. Bonus payments made by Chinese firms under the traditional wage system will be deemed to be payments made under a productivity incentive scheme. In regard to the usual productivity incentive schemes in unionised establishments, they will follow the usual process of direct negotiation between employers and unions, conciliation by the Ministry, if necessary, and upon agreement delivered within seven days to the Industrial Arbitration Court for certification under section 24 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act. Amendment agreed to.

There is a consequential amendment. This will be done. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 30, to leave out "younger" and insert "young". This is to correct a printing error. Amendment agreed to. Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 9 to 13 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill before the House seeks to amend the Probation of Offenders Act to provide for the appointment of volunteer probation officers who will be empowered to supervise offenders placed on probation. Hon. Members of the House may wish to know that the Community Probation Service Scheme was introduced in 1971. Under this Scheme, the Probation and Aftercare Service enrols members of the public as volunteer probation officers to help in the rehabilitation of young offenders whom the courts place on probation. Since the introduction of the Scheme, 347 persons have applied to become volunteer probation officers. So far, 132 persons have been selected. Of this number, 53 have been put on the job and 79 are receiving practical training. The Ministry's objective in introducing the Community Probation Service was to secure community involvement in probation and aftercare work. Probation as a form of treating offenders works best in a community which understands and accepts its objectives, principles and methods. Furthermore, the Ministry realises that there is a considerable pool of resources and goodwill among ordinary citizens, which could be tapped to assist the Service in its work. Since the implementation of the Scheme, we have found that our trust and confidence in the ability of these people to befriend and guide young people who have gone wrong has not been misplaced. My Ministry intends, therefore, to encourage further community participation and involvement in probation work by strengthening and consolidating the Community Probation Service. One of the ways in which this can be done is to empower volunteer probation officers the legal responsibility for supervising probationers. Up to now, volunteer probation officers have been acting as Welfare Assistants to our departmental probation officers, and they have no powers under the Act to supervise probationers. They only supplement the work of our own officers by increasing the frequency of contacts with probationers at their places of work, schools, homes or elsewhere. The Bill before the House is designed to vest volunteer probation officers with statutory powers to enable them to work closely with our own officers in supervising probationers, thus enhancing their effectiveness besides strengthening the Probation and Aftercare Service. The volunteers will handle the less problematic cases with the necessary guidance from the Department. Our own officers could then concentrate on the more difficult cases and the preparation of comprehensive and evaluative presentence reports for the consideration of the courts. Clause 3 of the Bill provides for the appointment of volunteer probation officers by the Minister from amongst persons who are not employed as Police Officers or Prison Officers. Initially, the Ministry intends to be very selective in the appointment of voluntary probation officers. Only those who have demonstrated the right attitude towards the job and the aptitude to work with offenders will be appointed. Clause 4 amends subsection (7) of section 5 of the Act which will enable the Chief Probation Officer to make available a copy of the probation order of the court to the volunteer probation officer if such a person has been assigned to supervise the probationer. Clause 5 amends section 6 of the Act and provides for the vesting in a volunteer probation officer, the same respective powers and duties as a probation officer would have under section 6 of the Act if the latter had been appointed to supervise the probationer instead. In addition, the clause empowers a volunteer probation officer to apply to a court for the discharge or an amendment of a probation order, with the proviso that he must first seek the approval of the Chief Probation Officer before applying for such a discharge or amendment of the order. Finally, clause 6 amends sections 4, 5 and 13 of the Act to provide that:-

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.-[Encik Othman Bin Wok]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill before the House seeks to amend section 8 of the Singapore Sports Council Act, 1973, to enable the Council to establish and manage sports clubs. One of the primary tasks of the Council is the planning and implementation of Government's "sports-for-all" policy which calls for the education and involvement of the masses in the regular practice of some wholesome form of physical activity. Towards this end, inter-constituency sports tournaments were introduced in 1972. The tournaments are organised by the Singapore Sports Council working closely with the various national sports organisations and the sports liaison officers of the constituencies. As the sports programme in each constituency developed, it was found that a sports liaison officer working alone was not enough for the proper co-ordination of sporting activities within his constituency. In view of this, Constituency. Sports Associations were formed to provide the organisational base for the promotion of sports within the constituencies and for the preparation of teams for both inter-constituency and intra-constituency tournaments. To-date, 39 such Associations have been registered under the Societies Act (Chapter 262). Hon. Members of the House will recall that several meetings were held in 1974 to discuss inter-constituency sports. Though it was generally agreed that the Constituency Sports Associations should be independent bodies, it was also recognised that to ensure success these Associations should be managed by officials who had the interest, aptitude and background in sports. Members of Parliament who attended these meetings pointed out various problems connected with the running of these Associations, apart from difficulties in management and in the recruitment of suitable personnel to serve in them. Subsequently, the Singapore Sports Council made a study of Constituency Sports Associations. The Study revealed that not all Members of Parliament were in favour of forming Constituency Sports Associations under the Societies Act because, amongst other things, the registration procedures in forming societies under the Societies Act are too complex and the legal obligations of managing an association under the Act are too burdensome. These obligations include: (i) the submission of annual reports and statements of accounts audited by public accountants; (ii) the liability of excess revenue to income tax; and (iii) an annual election of office bearers. Constituencies with Constituency Sports Associations are also faced with the following problems: (a) difficulty in getting sports officers and dedicated members to serve in the Associations on a continuing basis. Officials serve in a purely voluntary capacity. They are, by and large, persons with full-time employment and untrained in sports administration; (b) difficulty in obtaining sufficient funds to finance their sports programmes. The tax liability on excess revenue discourages them from raising funds. Furthermore, donations to the Associations do not enjoy income tax relief. There is no doubt that the difficulties and problems I have just mentioned have impeded the speedy formation of Constituency Sports Associations and their operation. Needless to say, such a situation would adversely affect the implementation of our "sports-for-all" policy. The amendment to section 8 of the Singapore Sports Council Act, 1973, will enable the Council to establish Constituency Sports Clubs as proprietary clubs under the Act, to, ensure that the "sports-for-all" policy can be implemented successfully. This would enable all constituencies to overcome the technical difficulties they face in promoting sports through Constituency Sports Associations. The amendment to section 23 is a consequential amendment. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.20 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment Bill. Although the Constituency Sports Association in my constituency was formed two years ago under the Societies Act, I believe that this amendment Bill will simplify the procedures involved in establishing the Constituency Sports Clubs and sports organisations. I believe this will contribute more effectively towards inter-constituency sports activities. As the Minister has pointed out, this measure would avoid the problem of having to present annual reports and statements of account and to conduct an annual election of office bearers. We know that many officials of the Constituency Sports Associations are also members of Citizens' Consultative Committees and that a number of other officials also belong to other organisations. They are all attached to the Constituency Sports Associations on a part-time basis and they cannot devote too much time to the Associations' activities. Therefore, a simplification of procedures would enable these people to carry out their task more easily. Furthermore, under the amendment Bill, Constituency Sports Associations will be exempted from paying income tax. The funds available would therefore be greater. I believe that this amendment Bill will promote sports more effectively so that our policy of "sports-for-all" will be carried out on a wider scale. Sir, I support this amendment Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister for Social Affairs one question. While I welcome the introduction of this amendment Bill, would the Hon. Minister inform the House as to the source of funds for the Singapore Sports Council to enable it to establish and manage the various sports clubs and their facilities?

Sir, as the Member for Sembawang has been repeating what I have said, therefore I have nothing to say to him. On the question raised by the Member for Punggol, when this Bill becomes an Act, the Singapore Sports Council will look into that matter.

Sir, I do not quite understand what the Hon. Minister means when he says that "the Singapore Sports Council will look into the matter". I have asked my question after having made a search into past Hansard records which state that the source of funds would, to a certain extent, come from the Singapore Pools (Pte) Ltd.

Sir, not all the funds of the Singapore Pools (Pte) Ltd, are channelled into financing the Constituency Sports Associations. Of course it will be desirable for these Sports Associations or Clubs to raise their own funds. But if it is necessary for the SSC to provide them with funds, then the SSC will look into the matter.

Sir, I think the Hon. Minister has not got my point. I am talking about the Constituency Sports Associations. The Constituency Sports Association in my constituency can very well look after itself easily enough, even though it has to pay 40% income tax on the excess of its income over expenditure. My question is this. As far as I can remember, when the construction of the National Stadium was first mooted, the Singapore Pools (Pte) Ltd, was formed and, to a certain extent, the profits of Singapore Pools were to be ploughed back for the construction of the Stadium. Subsequently, the National Sports Promotion Board was dissolved and the Singapore Sports Council was set up by statute. Now, I am given the impression that the SSC has been experiencing some difficulties with regard to funds to promote or provide more sports facilities for the inter-constituency sports activities; not for the Constituency Sports Associations in particular.

Sir, the point raised by the Member has no relevance to the Bill before the House.

Sir, this question is definitely relevant because if the Bill seeks to amend section 8 of the Singapore Sports Council Act, 1973, to enable the Council to establish and manage sports clubs, then it means that the SSC will definitely have to have some sort of funds to manage not only the facilities but also the Constituency Sports Clubs that may be constituted at a later stage. Therefore, my question is relevant.

Sir, I have nothing more to add. I have clearly stated just now that the SSC will look into this.

"The SSC will look into this" is a different matter.

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 BilI.-[Encik Othman Bin Wok]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill before the House seeks to amend certain provisions of the University of Singapore Act which have become either obsolete or inadequate since the Act was first enacted. The proposed amendment to section 3 of the Act empowers the Minister, on the advice of the Council of the University, to make amendments in the future without having to introduce amending legislation in Parliament. This provision is necessary in view of the rapid growth of the University and its impending move to Kent Ridge. Moreover, universities in many parts of the world have found their circumstances and functions altered and their operation rendered difficult by antiquated constitutions which could not be revised without great difficulty. The present procedure of making amendments is too cumbersome and time-consuming. The amended procedure will ensure that the University's growth is not hampered or retarded by outdated provisions in the Act. The other proposed amendments mainly concern provisions in the Constitution of the University of Singapore as set out in the Schedule to the Act. The existing Constitution provides, under section 5, for preference in the admission of students to be given to persons domiciled in Singapore, Malaysia or Brunei. It is clearly desirable that preference should now be given to Singapore citizens above all others. The proposed amendment seeks to rectify this anomaly. Sections 13 and 16 of the Constitution provide for certain governments and institutions to be represented on the Court and on the Council of the University, appropriate in the years before 1965. These outdated provisions are deleted in the proposed amendment. Provision is made instead for some of our own institutions, namely, the Ngee Ann Technical College and the Institute of Education, to be represented on the Court. The next proposed amendment relates to section 19 which provides for the Deans of Faculties in the University to be elected by their respective Faculties. The Deans are the key academic officers of the University. They are also responsible for the general administration of their respective Faculties. It is therefore vital that persons with the requisite academic standing and administrative experience be appointed Deans. The proposed amendment, therefore, provides for a Dean to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor after consultation with the Faculty concerned to ensure that the most suitable person is appointed. The next proposed amendment, which concerns section 42, is a minor one. This section provides for a Convocation to be held annually for the conferment of degrees. In practice, the Chancellor now confers degrees in writing and those who attend Convocation, having already graduated, are merely presented to the Chancellor. The proposed amendment seeks to regularise the position by redefining the purpose of the Convocation. The last proposed amendment of the Constitution of the University seeks to delete the whole of the existing section 45 which deals with the Students' Union, and to introduce in its place a new section 45 on the same subject. The intention of the proposed amendment is to provide a more comprehensive range of organised activities for the benefit of the students. The details of the reconstituted Students' Union are not spelt out in the proposed amendment to this section. They will form the subject of a statute to be made by the University for this purpose. It is the intention of the University to have the new Students' Union made up of a number of clubs, including a Political Club, to cater to the academic and extra-curricular interests of the entire student body. Every student will be a member of the Union as well as a member of at least one but not more than three of the Union's constituent clubs. Each club will have its objectives defined in its constitution, and its activities managed by a Committee elected by and from amongst members of that club. For several years now, a few student, activists, quite a disproportionate number of whom were non-Singapore students, have dominated the Students' Union. They have sought to give the impression that the whole student population is behind them in their activities espousing the causes of communist political detainees, interfering in labour disputes and trade union affairs, and generally taking up anti-establishment political issues. Under the new Students' Union Statute, such students will have to rally their supporters openly under the Political Club section of the Students' Union. They will have to register themselves under the Societies Act like all political parties, and assume responsibility for their political activities like ordinary citizens in politics, without the protective camouflage of academic autonomy and student exuberance. Only Singapore citizens can be members of such political clubs, a requirement which applies to all political parties. The role of the Students' Union will be to look after the welfare of the entire student body within the confines of the University in such matters as student welfare and health service, recreational amenities, canteen facilities, and so on. The Union will be managed by a, Council consisting of committee members representing the various clubs constituting the Union, the number of seats on the Council for each club being in proportion to the size of its membership. Union subscriptions will be collected by the University and apportioned among the Union and its clubs by the University Council as it thinks fit. Sufficient funds will be set aside for the Union to maintain its premises and pay its staff. The balance will be allocated among the clubs in proportion to their membership. All the allocated funds will be retained by the University in separate accounts for the use of the Union and its clubs. The University will act as bankers for all student organisations. This will ensure that their financial' transactions are not disrupted by the annual change of office-bearers and that financial records are properly maintained. Clause 3 of the Bill, which will be the new section 13 of the University Act, provides .for the application of the Societies Act to the University of Singapore Students' Union and its constituent bodies when they are constituted in accordance with the new subsection (1) of section 45 of the Constitution of the University. However, the Minister in charge of societies is empowered to exempt the Union and any of its constituent bodies from all or any of the provisions of the Societies Act. I wish to state here that, as the Minister in charge of societies, I intend to exempt the Union and its constituent bodies except the Political Club section of the Union from the provisions of the Societies Act. This is because I believe that the University authorities can under normal circumstances well look after the proper functioning of the new Students' Union. As for the Political Club or clubs, I have already stated the reasons why they should register under the Societies Act like all political parties. An interim provision in the Bill makes it lawful for the University to retain Union subscriptions collected by the University before the commencement of the Act. This provision is made in anticipation of the University's new role as bankers of the Union and its clubs when the Act comes into force. The full amount of subscriptions thus withheld will be used for the benefit of the new Union and its clubs. However, there is also an interim provision for the University Council to make grants to the existing Union. The amendments proposed are in the best interests of the University. I shall be pleased to supply any further information which Members may require. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to refer to sections of the Bill which relate to the Students' Union. Since the University of Malaya was constituted out of the two component colleges, namely, Raffles College and King Edward VII College, for all the time that we have had a university in Singapore, I imagine it would be difficult to find any generation of students who have not witnessed their union experiencing some tribulation or vicissitude of one kind or another. I know because I took an inordinate time to get my Degree! EOGMs (Extraordinary General Meetings) may not have been held with the same regularity as AGMs (Annual General Meetings). But the EOGM has, one might say, become institutionalised. Indeed, it has become so institutionalised that, at a recent forum attended by the Vice-Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor was asked (I am told) whether the same facility to allow students to call for an EOGM contained in the current Union constitution would be retained when the new statute for the new Students' Union is passed; not indicating very great support on the part of the students for the Union leadership. In the past few years another device seems to have been resorted to quite frequently, namely, the EOCM (Extraordinary Council Meeting). The difference between the EOCM and the EOGM, as far as I have been able to observe, has been that the rate of calling for the EOCM in moments of crisis is much more rapid than the EOGM, the gap between one EOCM and another, in fact, being a matter of days. Perhaps, Mr Speaker, Sir, you might appreciate that just as an EEG or ECG can tell you the condition of a patient's health, the EOCM and the EOGM rate can be used to judge the health of the Union. Motions of no confidence too, Mr Speaker, Sir, have figured among attempts at censure quite frequently throughout the history of the University of Singapore Students' Union. In fact, the Member for Kim Seng has himself had the unpleasant experience of a combination of EOCM, EOGM and a motion of no confidence. Sir, if students want a release of tension, some excitement, at the same time as they make sure the Union is operating in their own interest, this is all fine. However, recently, events associated with the Union have taken a more serious turn. About two years ago, as a result of the traditional EOGM, EOCM and motion of no-confidence, a number of individuals were elected to Union leadership including Juliet Chin and Tsui Hon Kwong. From then on despite pressing student problems the Union seemed to have been directed towards what I would like to describe as political agitation. I say "despite pressing student problems" because at about that time some students complained publicly of irresponsibility displayed by some of their fellows, and editorial comments in the Undergrad, now also known as the Hsueh Hseng Pau, referred to a general decline in standards of behaviour, both social and moral, and to blatant examples of vandalism, hooliganism, immorality and decadence. Despite this view by some students at that time it was decided by student union leaders to try to achieve what was described as a maximum exposure to social, political, educational and academic issues. Note, Mr Speaker, Sir, that academic issues take last place. There was also no mention of students' welfare and I believe students have commented upon this lack of interest in students' welfare. As a result of this decision to stimulate a consciousness arousing, national service was criticised. The anti-bus fare hike campaign was launched. The integrity of Members of Parliament was questioned, including my hon. Friend, the Member for Jalan Kayu. Some agitation against the Press Bill was contrived. The Housing and Development Board's increase in service and conservancy charges was severely criticised. Agitation on the ground of issues prevailing in a friendly neighbouring country was mounted, for example, in respect of the Johore Bahru squatters. The so-called Retrenchment Research Centre was started and agitation was mounted ostensibly on behalf of retrenched workers but, aimed also, it seems to me, at denigrating workers' representatives. Sir, it seems to me that it is all well and good for students to want to indulge in what has been' described as conscientisation. But it seems to me that the awakening that is being contrived is directed overwhelmingly in the direction of a strident emphasis on grievances and on opposition to Government action. Some student leaders have become so hypnotised by this development and have apparently become so inward-looking that they are not able to distinguish illusion from reality. I think my colleagues in the Philosophy Department might describe them as solipsists. A solipsist may be likened to a person who dreams he is a butterfly and when he awakes he is not sure whether he is a person who has dreamt that he is a butterfly or whether he is a butterfly who is dreaming that he is a person. The illusion and reality are confused. This small group of student leaders complain of anti-people action by the Government and they identify themselves with the people's struggle which, they say, shall be a victory. I have no doubt that the people's struggle will end in victory. But may I ask this small coterie of students whom they represent: what are their credentials? In fact, today they called for a solidarity rally and when I looked out at the lower quadrangle, on which they were supposed to assemble for this solidarity rally, I was greeted by a smiling expanse of empty green with a few students studiously studying under the shade of a tree. A very peaceful sight indeed, Mr Speaker, Sir. It is sad that a few individuals who have suffered from a distortion of judgment have been able to bring the affairs of the Union to such a sorry state in which, overpowered by the hot air that they themselves have generated, they have neglected even mundane things like Union finances, that it is public knowledge that the auditor has given only a qualified report. Yet the minority, who are student leaders and their personal following, do not have the support of the majority of the students who simply want to swot it out in the library, commuting between library, canteen and lecture theatre and who, despite their own amusement and entertainment over the antics of student leaders, seem reluctant to do anything to change things for themselves. But this is not unusual. In many other universities, as far as I have occasionally witnessed, it is a few who work in the Union while the large majority merely want to go about their business of getting their education, training their intellects and preparing for a role for themselves in society. However, where we are concerned, we are facing the possibility that the student leadership at the University of Singapore may well find themselves manipulated by those who do not have the woolly idealism of students but instead a clear notion of what they want, and what they want may not be for the benefit of our people. I have referred to attempts in the University to express dissent, and this I did during the debate on the Annual Budget Statement. I have mentioned that our students should be warned against being pawns of shadowy individuals who, while espousing humanistic aims and freedom, cynically exploit youthful ideals. It is for this reason that I support the passage of this Bill. The Union seems now open to exploitation with the leadership exercising themselves over imagined political grievances which have nothing to do with the welfare of the students themselves and which indeed have no foundation in reality whatsoever. I imagine that it would be correct to say that this Bill is in a way an expression of a no-confidence motion in the present way the Students' Union is being run. There is no doubt that in future the administration will play a bigger hand than it has been able to in the past in the affairs of the Union. In this respect I can only refer to the statement made by the Vice-Chancellor that he would have the interests of the students at heart in respect of the Union. I would expect that the majority of the students would accept this assurance, and I think they do. I cannot but reprehend the reference made (in a very recent student publication) to the Vice-Chancellor as the chief controller, namely, a man long experienced in controlling student organisations - a sort of super gestapo chief. This is another example of the kind of distortion a small coterie of student leaders go in for. It would be more reasonable to think of the Vice-Chancellor as being a man of vast educational experience who has reached the top of his profession, whose academic abilities have been recognised through the university bestowing on him an honorary award, and so on. The administration, I am sure, realises that with authority over the Union in their hands they should seek at all times, as far as possible, to move in the direction that reflects the will o~ the majority of the students and certainly towards the good of the Union and the development of student community potential and individual intellectual and moral qualities in an atmosphere of academic calm and stability. This is what I think the Vice-Chancellor wants. This is what the vast majority of students and their parents would want. This is what the people want. This Parliament represents the people, this is what the people want. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! 4.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill which seeks to amend the University of Singapore Act to bring it up to date and to make it more flexible. In so far as the Bill seeks to do away with or to modify statutory provisions which were enacted for purposes which have been achieved or to suit circumstances which are no longer valid, I do not think there can be any question as to the need for the Bill. The provisions of the Bill relating to the Students' Union, however, may give rise to a certain amount of confusion compounded by emotions and sentiments. I do not doubt the usefulness of a Students' Union or the desire of the students themselves to run their Union with the minimum amount of supervision by the University Authority or any other authority. As it is, most University students have left the running of the Students' Union and the various Students' Clubs to a relatively handful of students. There is certainly cause for anxiety when the few students who are supposed to promote the welfare of their fellow students can freely make use of their office for other activities making not the slightest bearing on the welfare of students. To those who like to invoke the fashionable slogan on the sanctity of academic freedom, they should also consider the fact that University students have no freedom of choice regarding the membership of their Students' Union. The Students' Union, even after the adoption of this Bill, enjoys a privilege which has always been denied to trade unions in Singapore, and that is the privilege of being a closed shop union. The moment a student is admitted to the Singapore University, he automatically becomes a member of the Students' Union and his membership subscription is automatically and regularly checked-off or collected by the University on behalf of the Union for so long as the student is enrolled in the University. Sir, may I take this opportunity to request the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs and Education to persuade the Minister for Labour to make an amendment to the Trade Unions Act and extend this privilege to the unions? I would recommend my NTUC colleagues to make the Minister for Home Affairs and Education a Friend of Labour! If the provisions of the Bill affecting the Students' Union are seen from the point of view of the minority of students who seek to continue to use the name of the passive majority of the students' body for their own ends, it is obvious that the provisions are unpalatable and constitute a threat to their sectional interest. But if the same provisions of the Bill are approached from the point of view of the general body of students, it is patently clear that the provisions are necessary for the protection of the welfare and interest of the general body of students. The merits of this portion of the Bill should not be gauged from the volume of noise made by a vociferous minority of students but should be judged on the basis of whether the protection conferred by the Bill on the general body of students outweighs the reduction of scope for abuse by a minority of students. As I have said, the proposed provisions affecting the Students' Union can only serve to prevent abuses in the conduct of students' affairs whether by the whole students' body under the name of the Students' Union or whether by a sectional group of students under the name of one of the Students' Clubs. For the vast majority of students, there cannot be any valid and cogent objection to any proposal for a more equitable and objective distribution of funds on the basis of a number of students participating in the activity to be financed. It is a more democratic procedure than the present basis of allocating common funds to any activity according to whether a handful of students think the activity is desirable. If it is seriously contended, as it has been done in certain quarters, that the Students' Union constitutes an integral part of the educational process rightly associated with a University, then it is more urgent that the students should get their lessons correct. If a few students have repeatedly shown themselves unable or unwilling to discipline themselves to shoulder the monotonous routine of catering for the welfare and interest of the general body of students, it does not mean that this House should also shirk the unpleasant but necessary task of restraining a handful of students from dramatically exploiting their stewardship of the Students' Union for their own heroics. For these considerations, I strongly support the Bill moved by the Minister for Home Affairs and Education. 5.02 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 5 of the Bill puzzles me. The Minister just now did give reasons for the necessity for this clause, but I am sure there are many other reasons that he has not disclosed as yet. If he has no other reasons, I am wondering why clause 5 is being enacted and why were the funds collected for the benefit of the University of Singapore Students' Union retained by the University. I hope the Hon. Minister will enlighten this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs and Education is not going to be popular with some of the more union-active students of the University of Singapore for moving this Bill, particularly with reference to the provisions relating to the Students' Union. This is a small occupational hazard that he sometimes faces as a Government Minister in discharging his duties for the good and well-being of the whole community. Perhaps the Minister in this instance can take some comfort in the thought that the Member for Katong, the Member for Boon Teck and I will also probably come in for some pointed criticisms by the Students' Union leaders for speaking in support of this Bill. The proposal to bring the Students' Union within the ambit of the Societies Act has certainly generated quite some synthetic anger among some members of the Union. The Bill is misconstrued as being deliberately repressive. They see the Bill as an act to end their very special and privileged position to engage in unrestricted activities, particularly in the political field and taking refuge in the sanctuary of the University campus and under the cloak of the oft-quoted but misunderstood concept of academic freedom. It is a healthy sign, Mr Speaker, Sir, to see some of our students showing interest in the political and social affairs of our island Republic. I only hope that their interest is genuine and abiding and does not vanish as soon as they leave the University and secure good jobs. It is important that we do not treat our University students as young, immature and irresponsible adolescents. They should be treated as adults. Their Union should be accorded the status of an organisation for adults, no more and no less equal than any organisation for adults. They must enjoy rights and privileges, responsibilities and obligations, no more and no less than any group or organisation of adult people. Trade unions, political parties and other organisations in our State come under the ambit of either the Trade Unions Act or the Societies Act. Therefore, the intention behind this Bill is to bring the Students' Union within the ambit of the Societies Act. It should not be seen as placing unusual restrictions on the students' body but should be regarded as placing the students' body on the same footing as other organisations in the Republic. As a matter of fact, the Singapore Polytechnic Students' Union is registered under the Societies Act. The People's Action Party, as any other political party in Singapore, is registered under the Societies Act. The fact that the PAP is the ruling party today clearly shows that organisations, including political parties, registered under the Societies Act, are not necessarily hampered or restricted in carrying out their functions and objectives fully. So for all the activities of the Students' Union, other than political activities, there is virtually of no consequence now that the Students' Union has come under the ambit of the Societies Act, particularly when the Minister has now made it known that he intends to exempt the Students' Union and its constituent bodies, except the Political Club, from the provisions of the Societies Act. What it amounts to in the end is that foreign students enjoying the hospitality of the Singapore Government and taking advantage of the facilities paid for by the people of Singapore will henceforth not be allowed to meddle in the political affairs of our Republic, as some of them had done so far. What is wrong with that, Mr Speaker, Sir? 5,08 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the risk of allowing my personal integrity to be questioned once more, I would nevertheless ask the Minister concerned whether there is any reason why we should not refer this Bill to a Select Committee, in view of the evident concern and interest shown by the students and some of the academic staff.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I approached the House just now my vision was arrested by the colossal claims of the present student leadership that their freedoms are being fundamentally attacked. In view of that fact, may [just make some comments on this Bill? I just wish to make a brief comment on clause 3 of the Bill and the amendment to section 45 of the Constitution, contained in clause 4. Sir, clause 3 brings the Singapore Students' Union within the purview of the authority of the Registrar of Societies. In the light of the Minister's explanation, many of the anxieties of the present student leadership must surely have been allayed. But it seems to me that the big commotion about this provision in the Bill bringing the Students' Union within the authority of the Registrar of Societies is misconceived. Up to now the constituent bodies of the Students' Union have all along been registered bodies under the Societies Act. It seems strange that hitherto the student leadership has not found it necessary to claim that its constituent bodies have had their fundamental freedoms attacked. But now when the provision in this Bill attempts to bring the Students' Union within the purview of the Registrar of Societies' authority, this claim is loudly made. I think there is some confusion in the thinking of the present student leadership and it would be well for them if their articulation on issues take on a sober and mature note. The amendment to section 45 of the Constitution allows the Council of the University to determine how Union fees may be applied for the purpose of the Students' Union and its constituent bodies. If the Students' Union shows any real alarm over this amendment, I think it is based on the belief that the Council will suppress legitimate student activities in the future, which belief at this stage must surely be premature. As I see it, the reconstructed Council under the Bill comprise various personalities who should be able to consider and decide impartially the desirable application of Union funds. To argue that by this amendment the Union will be hamstrung in the application of its funds is, [think, to start off by saying that the majority of the members in the Council will comprise puppets who are, therefore, not suitable for office in the Council. This argument is frivolous and, I think, facetious, as it passes adverse judgment on the capacity of people who have not yet begun to exercise this capacity. But in concluding, Sir, the point I wish to stress is simply, or what surely must be, the accepted principle in the expenditure of Union funds. These funds are largely made up of students' subscriptions during their stay in the University. They should, therefore, be expended for the proper interest of the general body of the students. If there should be an authority set up to ensure that such funds should not be expended wastefully or in a manner contrary to the interests of the general body, then surely commonsense must dictate that such an authority is welcome. 5.13 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to give my full support to this Bill. The Bill in no way hinders the basic rights of our students as citizens of Singapore. As a university lecturer I can vouch for the fact that the vast majority of our students are hard working, well motivated and taking full advantage of the higher education that we are affording them. Most of them are not concerned with Students' Union politics. As the Minister has pointed out, they are only a small minority of radicals, most of whom are not Singapore citizens. These radicals do not realise that attendance at the University is not a right. The cost of attending it is very heavily subsidised by society. Foreign students are here as guests of Singapore, paid for by the people of Singapore. The Government of Singapore, as the elected representatives of the people, have every right to restrict whatever freedoms and whatever privileges that these foreign students enjoy in Singapore. As for Singapore students, since society is paying for their higher education, let them not forget that only a very small proportion of our population are afforded higher education. Therefore, society has every right to expect that both students and lecturers at the University make constructive use of their time and facilities and that the University should not be used as a privileged, a protected political platform. As a matter of fact, Sir, the Minister in his statement has generously allowed for the formation of political clubs in the University. These clubs will allow the students to express themselves politically and would serve as an outlet for their exuberance, for their social concern and to increase or heighten their political awareness in their capacity as citizens of Singapore. I would hope that our student leaders will learn quickly that to be truly influential the leadership must be sound, must be constructive, and their honesty and integrity must he beyond question. At the recent meeting between the Vice-Chancellor and the students, the question of financial probity was raised because the auditors' report indicated some malpractices and misuse of Union funds. This is something which I am very disturbed and very concerned about as a University teacher, because if the younger people with the intellect and with higher education do not have financial responsibility and are not able to assert leadership which is sound, constructive and honest, then what kind of leadership can they subsequently offer to the people of Singapore? Sir, as I look at their publications and statements, I find that they do not reflect appropriately the intellectual standing of a University. The intellectual and factual content of debate is appallingly low. The standard of the Undergrad, in particular, has deteriorated over the years. The articles which are published are emotional and full of ideological blinkers. They do not reflect what the students have been taught at the University, and I have challenged my own students often to make use of the economic principles that I have taught them to appraise economic policies and problems of Singapore, of the region and of the world. I challenged them to make constructive replies to the garbage which is thrown up in the Undergrad from time to time on all manners of social, political and economic issues. If our students really want to make their voices heard and want to make an impression on the people of Singapore and in the world at large, then they should be able to meet argument for argument and to present facts and to confront whatever opposing arguments in a manner befitting people who have received the benefit of higher education. Sir, I have appeared at many University forums and debates and I have found that the great majority of our students are rational and are responsive and responsible, and if we can somehow reach out to them to try and explain things to them, try to reason with them in a proper dialogue, my own feeling is that many of them would respond. Unfortunately, it is the radical lecturers and so on who seem to make the effort to reach out to these students. But fortunately the vast majority do not respond to them. 5.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank those Members who have come out positively in support of this Bill, and I believe that the support is quite overwhelming. May I just touch on the speech by the Member for Katong? He has put his points much more picturesquely in support of the Bill. I believe he is able to do so because, as he said, he had watched what happened from his office in the Extra-mural Department, which overlooks the lower quadrangle where they held rallies. As such, I am quite sure he speaks with solid experience. It now, leaves me to answer two questions which have been raised by Members. The Member for Jalan Kayu wants to know why we do not propose to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. There are two reasons. The first is that it is quite a clear-cut Bill. There is no controversy except the controversy thrown up, as stated by Members, by a coterie or a small group of vociferous student leaders who want to cloud the issue with distortions. Secondly, this Bill is merely making the formal amendments. After the passing of this Bill, as far as the Students' Union is concerned, a statute will have to be enacted by the University Council, setting out in detail the provisions of the new Students' Union that will replace the existing one. As such, we do not think there is any need for this Bill to go to Select Committee. On the question brought up by the Member for Potong Pasir regarding funds which have been retained by the University authorities and, to-date, not released to the Students' Union, part of the answer has, in fact, been given by a few Members of Parliament who referred to the qualified report given by the external auditors on the 1974 accounts of the University of Singapore Students' Union. I understand that the reason for the University authorities to continue to hold on to the subscriptions has already been given by the Vice-Chancellor when he met the students recently. The Vice-Chancellor told the students that he was not satisfied with the accounts of the Students' Union because the accounts showed that the Students' Union was indebted to the Australian Students' Union to the tune of $45,000 and that the Students' Union leaders were unable to satisfactorily account for this debt or explain why they were so heavily indebted to the Australian Students' Union. Another reason why he was not satisfied with the accounts was that a large sum of money made out as loans to former University of Singapore Students' Union councillors had still remained unpaid. The Vice-Chancellor and the University administration, who have a moral obligation to ensure that funds collected from every student are properly used for the benefit of the student body as a whole, therefore have rightly withheld the release of the funds until a satisfactory explanation from the Students' Union has been given to the University authorities, failing which the funds will be transferred to the new Students' Union when it comes into being.

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 propose to suspend the Sitting now and will take the Chair again at 6.00 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.28 p.m. until 6.00 p.m. Sitting resumed at 6.00 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the tragedy of drug abuse has been presented in terms of the individual drug abuser and his family. The irreparable damage caused by drug addiction to the health and career of the drug abuser and the sorrow, anxiety and the shame caused to the family has often been emphasised. This, therefore, need not be elaborated upon here. But what is not sufficiently appreciated is the threat that drug addiction poses to national security and viability. If drug abuse were to be allowed to grow unchecked, particularly among our youths, we would eventually be faced with a dangerous national security problem. In no time we would find that it had penetrated right into the vital and sensitive institutions of the State, like the Police and the Armed Forces. This, in fact, happened in South Vietnam during those tortuous years of undeclared war and was a major factor leading to its eventual collapse. Drug addiction became rampant and uncontrollable there. It not only sapped the spirit of the soldiers to fight but also undermined their fitness to act out what little spirit that was left in them. Thus from the very onset they had no chance at all despite their superiority in firepower, military hardware and sophisticated gadgetry. We have some indications that there is a Communist plan to use narcotics to corrupt and soften the population of the various states in South-East Asia for the purposes of subversion and eventual take-over. It is, therefore, vital that we take the severest of action now to forestall it and stop the supply of narcotics into the country and check the spread of drug addiction. Rampant drug addiction among our young men and women will also strike at the very foundations of our social fabric and undermine our economy. Once ensnared by drug dependence they will no longer be productive digits contributing to our economic and social progress. They will not be able to carry on with their regular jobs. Usually for the young men, they turn to all sorts of crime, and for the girls, to prostitution to get money to buy their badly needed supply of drugs. Thus, as a developing country, our progress and very survival will be seriously threatened. Singapore, as it is situated, is in a rather vulnerable position. The "Golden Triangle" straddling Thailand, Laos and Burma, which is the source of supply of narcotics, is not far from Singapore. Being a busy port, an important air communication centre and an open coastline easily accessible from neighbouring countries, it makes detection of supplies of narcotics coming in difficult. Further, the manufacture of morphine and heroin is not a complicated process and can be done in as small a space as a toilet. Our Central Narcotics Bureau has intelligence information that much of the heroin brought into Singapore has been manufactured in illicit laboratories clandestinely established in a neighbouring country. The Central Narcotics Bureau also reported that there was an abortive attempt to set up an illicit heroin laboratory in Singapore itself. Heroin is one of the most potent and dangerous drugs. In the first half of 1974 only nine out of 1,793 drug abusers arrested consumed heroin. In the corresponding period this year 1,007 out of 1,921 drug abusers arrested consumed heroin. Thus the number of heroin abusers arrested increased by almost 112 times in 12 months. This is an explosive increase by any reckoning. Equally significant is the fact that the number of traffickers arrested for dealing in heroin had also increased from six in the first half of 1974 to 26 in the corresponding period this year. These statistics show clearly that existing penalties under the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1973, have not been a sufficient deterrence to traffickers. In 1974 the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act was invoked to detain traffickers and financiers, and 31 major traffickers and financiers have been detained so far. Despite this threat of indefinite detention, trafficking is still rife. This is because it is lucrative and syndicates are prepared to look after the interests of traffickers and their dependants whenever they are caught and imprisoned. Clause 13 of this Bill, therefore, seeks to amend the Second Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1973, so that the death penalty will be imposed for the unauthorised manufacture of morphine and heroin irrespective of amounts involved. The death penalty will also be imposed for the unauthorised import, export or trafficking of more than 30 grammes of morphine or more than 15 grammes of heroin. A number of countries, including Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Burma, Egypt, Nigeria, Turkey and Iran, have imposed the death penalty for the unauthorised manufacturing, importing, exporting and trafficking of hard drugs such as morphine and heroin. The death penalty provided in the Second Schedule of the Bill is a close parallel to the provisions in the Iranian law in that the death penalty is imposed for the unauthorised manufacture of morphine and heroin irrespective of amounts involved, but in the case of unauthorised trafficking, importing and exporting of those drugs the death penalty is imposed only when the quantities exceed a specified weight. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1973, trafficking is defined as selling, giving, administering, transporting, sending, delivering and distributing drugs. It is not intended to sentence petty morphine and heroin pedlars to death. It is, therefore, necessary to specify the quantity by weight, exceeding which the death penalty will be imposed. The weights refer to the pure substance. For heroin any quantity in which the pure heroin content is above 15 grammes will attract the death penalty. Such an amount when mixed with adulterants is sufficient to spike some 500 heroin cigarettes. One heroin-spiked cigarette is usually shared by a few beginners. Thus 15 grammes of pure heroin can do considerable damage and ruin a very large number of our youths. As a comparison, Iranian law provides for a mandatory death sentence where the trafficking only involves more than 10 grammes of heroin. Let me also allay the fear of those who may have the impression that drug addicts might inadvertently be hanged as a result of their having in their possession a controlled drug which contains more than 15 grammes of pure heroin. The heroin that is commonly used by drug abusers and addicts in Singapore is referred to as Heroin No. 3. This is currently sold in little plastic phials, at $32 per phial. It is usually mixed with other substances in the proportions of about 40% pure heroin and 60% adulterants. Each phial contains about 0.8 grammes of the mixed substance. Therefore, a person will only be in danger of receiving the death penalty if he has in his possession some 37.5 grammes of adulterated heroin which contains 40% of pure heroin. This works out to 47 phials. And it costs about $1,500 to buy this amount at the current retail price. It is, therefore, most unlikely for a person who is in possession of so much heroin to be only a drug addict and not a trafficker. An addict uses between half to one phial of heroin a day. Even if he is rich and can afford it, he does not buy more than two or three phials at a time for fear of being arrested and convicted as a trafficker. It is not possible to determine the addictive dosage of heroin and morphine to equate the weights of these two drugs for the purpose of imposing the death sentence. This is because the addictive dosage varies from one addict to another depending on the individual's physiology and psychological make-up. Therefore, medicinal dosage is used to differentiate the weights. Since every gramme of heroin is equivalent in medicinal doses to two grammes of morphine, it is provided that trafficking, importing and exporting of a controlled drug containing more than 30 grammes of pure morphine will attract the death penalty. Although traffickers of morphine and Clause 4 of the Bill makes statutory heroin dealing in quantities up to but not provision for the appointment of the exceeding the specified weights will not be hanged, the Bill provides for heavier sentences for them than those in existence. Similarly, the maximum sentence for the unauthorised trafficking, importing and exporting of opium, cannabis and cannabis resin above a specified quantity is enhanced. For example, the unauthorised trafficking of heroin from 10 grammes to 15 grammes, morphine from 20 grammes to 30 grammes, opium exceeding 6 kilogrammes, cannabis exceeding 10 kilogrammes and cannabis resin exceeding 4 kilogrammes carries the maximum sentence of 30 years imprisonment and 15 strokes of the rotan. Without the amendment such offences would at most be punishable with 20 years imprisonment or a fine of $40,000 or both and 10 strokes of the rotan. The minimum sentence for such offences after the amendment will he 20 years imprisonment and 15 strokes of the rotan. The existing minimum sentence is three years imprisonment or a fine of $5,000 or both and two strokes of the rotan. These stiffer penalties for the lesser offences are introduced to harmonise with the imposition of the death penalty. Opportunity is also taken to include other amendments in this Bill. I need mention only the more important of these amendments. Clause 5 reduces the quantity of morphine from 5 grammes to 3 grammes and diamorphine (heroin) from 5 grammes to 2 grammes for invoking the presumption of trafficking in these drugs provided in section 15 of the Act. . The morphine and heroin retailed in Singapore contain an average of 40% adulterants and 60% adulterants respectively. Taking this into consideration, the weights are lowered so that the weight of the pure substance is used consistently in defining the offence as well as for specifying the penalties. Director and other officers of the Central Narcotics Bureau, and clause 8 confers on them all the powers of a police officer under the Criminal Procedure Code in relation to an investigation into a seizable offence. Clause 6 introduces a presumption that a person whose urine is found to contain a controlled drug as a result of a urine test has consumed a controlled drug unless the contrary is proved. Further, clause 11 provides the Director of Central Narcotics Bureau with the power to require a person to attend an approved institution for treatment or rehabilitation if, as a result of a urine test, he deems such a course of action necessary. Clause 7 amends section 22 of the Act to make clear that a person arrested by an officer of the Bureau may be taken to the Bureau. All these provisions are to strengthen the hand and facilitate the work of CNB officers in dealing with drug addicts with a view to treatment and rehabilitation. Although the more severe penalties and some of the other provisions in the Bill are meant to provide the necessary deterrence to drug traffickers and pushers, there will be no slackening in the Government's programme to deal with the drug problem on other fronts. On the one hand, there will be greater deterrence to traffickers to cut off the supply of narcotics, and on the other, every effort will be made to treat and rehabilitate those who have already been hooked on to the drug habit by improved rehabilitation facilities. The Drug Rehabilitation Centre at St John's Island has been enlarged and its facilities upgraded to take in a total number of 600 inmates at a cost of $900,000. The female section of the Centre has been completed and can accommodate 120 female addicts. Now that the Vietnamese refugees have left, the drug addicts are now back at the Centre. Recently, the Government made available to the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association a former police post at Rumah Miskin to be used as a half-way house. This half-way house will be used as temporary abode for drug addicts who are unable or not ready to go back to their home environment upon discharge from the Drug Rehabilitation Centre. A comprehensive programme covering enforcement, penalties, treatment and rehabilitation is being built up to combat our drug problem. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 6.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the shocking statistics the Minister has just quoted prove that this Bill needs to be passed. However, I am rather surprised, in fact, shocked, that "this Bill will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure." "Clause 4 makes statutory provision for the appointment of the Director of Central Narcotics Bureau and other officers of the Bureau." This will necessitate an increase in staff to ensure that this drug problem is solved. Certainly, with the present staff that the CNB has, it will be impossible for a solution to be arrived at. Again, "clause 11 extends the power of the Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau to send any person to an approved institution for treatment and rehabilitation." With this amendment, the Director will most certainly send as many people as deserved to be rehabilitated and treated to the approved institutions. This will cost money. It is therefore surprising that the Minister has not taken this extra financial expenditure into consideration to ensure that this problem is solved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill on the misuse of drugs where the maximum penalty for this offence carries a death sentence. The Bill is being introduced at a very timely and apt moment when drug offences in the Republic have increased greatly in the last few months. It has become a common offence. If this lucrative business of drug trafficking is not nipped in the bud, our Republic may be accused of being a distribution centre of drugs in this region. This will affect the good name of our Republic. In recent months there has been an increasing number of unauthorised trafficking of drugs in the Republic, and press reports confirm that more offenders have been brought' to book. One way of stopping this trade from spreading is to impose the death sentence. This will give second thoughts to anyone indulging in this unauthorised trade. Sir, although I support this Bill, I would like to state that a situation may arise where as a result of surprise checks by officers of the Narcotics Bureau, innocent people without their knowledge may he found in possession of drugs. These innocent victims may have been fixed, and this might even cost them their lives. So the question of benefit of the doubt should be carefully considered. Let me cite a few instances. Recently, I came across an article in the press that an apprentice in an electronics firm was charged and convicted to a jail sentence for possession of heroin. The accused was also reported to have put drops of heroin in his fiancee's bowl of mutton soup without her knowledge in order to get her sexually aroused. She was also nabbed by the narcotics officers. Fortunately, during the trial the accused admitted that he had put the drug in her bowl of soup without her knowledge, and the magistrate therefore acquitted the girl. If the accused had denied this fact, she could also have been jailed, though innocent. Another case involved a foreign architect who was fined by a magistrate's court after he was found guilty of possession of drugs in his flat. He denied that he had taken drugs or had allowed any guest to do so in his flat because of his status. He claimed that social parties had been held in his premises before it was raided and that drugs could have been left there by his guests, some of whom had overstayed on different occasions before he left Singapore for a short visit abroad. Sir, these two cases leave room for doubt. The accused could be guilty or innocent. Therefore, when the death sentence is introduced, care must be taken to see that innocent people are not convicted. Genuine drug pedlars could fix innocent people by placing drugs in their possession without their knowledge and then tip off the Central Narcotics Bureau for an investigation. Arid if a victim is unable to prove his innocence, he is in for trouble. Sir, I support this Bill for the sake of discipline in the country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the two hon. Members for supporting this Bill. First of all, let me assure the Member for Anson that if a person is innocent and that he is being framed by someone who tries to fix him by putting controlled drugs in his premises, he need not have any fear. There will first be a thorough investigation and if he is found innocent he will not be prosecuted. Even if he were prosecuted, there is the second line, which is the court. A court will not convict any person if it has a reasonable doubt that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged. So I can assure the Member for Anson that persons found innocent will not be prosecuted and sentenced. The Member for Potong Pasir raised the point that in the explanatory statement to the Bill it is stated that "it will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure.'.' May I explain to him that the introduction of the Bill itself does not involve any extra expenditure. It does not mean that the Government will not have to spend any money on employing more enforcement officers if we want to step up our enforcement action against traffickers. Even if this Bill had not been introduced, if we want to increase enforcement action more enforcement officers will have to be employed and the Government will have to spend more money. So he can be rest assured that there is no contradiction in the statement at the end of the Bill.

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

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 9, to leave out the full-stop and insert - `; and (c) by inserting immediately after the word "thereunder" at the end of the definition of "traffic" appearing therein the expression "; and "trafficking" has a corresponding meaning".'. Sir, this is a formal drafting amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to seek clarification here. I wonder whether this Bill has been thoroughly scrutinised during its drafting stage. I notice that the Minister has filed a series of amendments which are not only consequential but substantial in nature. I would just like to get an assurance from the Minister that the Bill has been carefully considered. A Bill of this nature which introduces the death penalty should, in the first instance, be carefully thought out, planned, and drafted, and there should be no cause for subsequent amendments as we do now have. Surely there was ample time for all these subsequent amendments to be incorporated in the draft Bill itself.

Sir, I shall explain the reasons for my amendments. The Member for Punggol has jumped the gun by asking for clarification so soon after I have moved the first amendment to clause 3. Some of the amendments are merely formal, as in the case of this amendment to clause 3. The amendments to clause 5, however, are not formal, and I will explain the reason at the proper time. Apart from the formal amendments, the other amendments are to make the provisions in the Bill very clear. I agree with the Member for Punggol that since the Bill introduces the death penalty we have got to be very clear about its provisions. For this very reason careful thought has been given in looking over the Bill and we would like to make it still clearer. Hence, these amendments. So it does not mean that no careful thought has been given to the Bill. In fact, a great deal of thought has been given to it. If the Member will bear with me, I will explain the amendments as they are moved. Amendment agreed to.

There is a consequential amendment to be made: In page 2, line 3, to leave out "and". This will be done. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Clause 5 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, to leave out lines 21 to 26 inclusive and insert- '(a) by deleting paragraph (b) thereof and substituting thereof the following:- "(b) 3 grammes of morphine contained in any controlled drug; and (b) by deleting paragragh (c) thereof and substituting thereof the following:- "(c) 2 grammes of diamorphine (heroin) contained in any controlled drug; or".'. Sir, this amendment is necessary to make it clear that the quantities of morphine and heroin which are specified for the presumption of trafficking in section 15 of the Act relate to the quantities of these substances contained in any controlled drug. Morphine and heroin are not dealt with in their pure state in practice. Amendment agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 32, after "drug", to insert "in contravention of paragraph (b) of section 6". Sir, this is a formal drafting amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 21, after "Class C drug", to insert ", except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection". Sir, this is a formal drafting amendment. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 24, to leave out from "committed" to "and" in line 26 and insert-- "----

Sir, I beg to move, In page 5, lines 4 to 6, to leave out the heading "Specified drug or specified quantity thereof involved" and insert "Specified drug or quantity thereof or drug with specified content involved". Sir, this is an amendment consequential to the amendment to section 29(2) in clause 9. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 5, lines 16 to 18, to leave out "Unauthorized traffic" in morphine where the quantity is -" and insert "Unauthorized traffic in controlled drug (except opium) containing such quantity of morphine being -". Sir, the reason for this amendment is to make it clear that the quantities of morphine which are specified for the imposition of the death penalty and other enhanced penalties for unauthorised traffic in morphine relate to the quantities of this substance contained in any controlled drug. Morphine is not dealt with in the pure state in practice. In fact, it is not intended to impose the death penalty for unauthorised traffic in opium and as opium also contains morphine it is excluded. This is to make the provision clear. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 5, lines 25 to 27, to leave Out "Unauthorized traffic in diamorphine where the quantity is-" and insert "Unauthorized traffic in controlled drug containing such quantity of diamorphine being -". Sir, the reason for this amendment is also to make it clear that the quantities of diamorphine (which is, in fact, heroin) which are specified for the imposition of the death penalty and other enhanced penalties for unauthorised traffic in diamorphine relate to the quantities of this substance contained in any controlled drug. Heroin is not dealt with in the pure state in practice. Amendment agreed to. 6.45 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, lines 4 to 6, to leave out the heading "Specified drug or specified quantity thereof involved" and insert "Specified drug or quantity thereof or drug with specified content involved", This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a consequential amendment. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 7, lines 4 to 6, to leave out the heading "Specified drug or specified quantity thereof involved" and insert "Specified drug or quantity thereof or drug with specified content involved". Sir, this is also a consequential amendment. Amendment agreed to

Sir, I beg to move, In page 7, lines 7 to 10, to leave out "Unauthorized import or export of morphine where the quantity is -`` and insert "Unauthorized import or export of controlled drug (except opium) containing such quantity of morphine being -". Sir, here again, the amendment is to make it clear that the quantities of morphine which are specified for the imposition of the death penalty and other enhanced penalties for unauthorized import or export of morphine relate to the quantities of this substance contained in any controlled drug. Morphine is not dealt with in its pure state in practice. It is not intended to impose the death penalty for unauthorized import or export of opium, and as opium also contains morphine it is excluded. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 7, lines 17 to 20, to leave out "Unauthorized import or export of diamorphine where the quantity is -`` and insert "Unauthorized import or export of controlled drug containing such quantity of diamorphine being -". Here again, Sir, the explanation is similar, i.e. to make it clear that the quantities of diamorphine (or heroin), which are specified for the imposition of the death penalty and other enhanced penalties for unauthorised import or export of diamorphine, relate to the quantities of this substance contained in any controlled drug. Heroin is not dealt with in its pure state in practice. Amendment agreed to

Sir, I beg to move, In page 8, lines 4 to 6, to leave out the heading "Specified drug or specified quantity thereof involved" and insert "Specified drug or quantity thereof or drug with specified content involved". Here again, Sir, this is an amendment consequential to clause 9 which amends subsection (2) of section 29. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 8, lines 28 to 31, to leave out - "Maximum 20 years or $40,000 or both Minimum 3 years or $5,000 or both" and insert a dash. Sir, this is a formal drafting amendment.

Sir, may I seek clarification from the Hon. Minister regarding the insertion of a dash against the originally proposed punishment of a maximum of 20 years or $40,000 or both and a minimum of 3 years or $5,000 or both, in respect of an offence for the cultivation of cannabis, opium, coca plant. I ask this question because in this Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill, heavy penalties are to be imposed for those who are involved in drug trafficking. This is rightly so. Therefore, I do not know why the Minister is proposing to leave out the punishment provisions. For myself I do not think it should be deleted, otherwise it destroys the spirit of the entire Bill because the person who cultivates cannabis, opium, coca plant is indirectly involved in drug trafficking. And as the Hon. Minister has rightly pointed out, it will undermine the moral fibre of our society, the very structure of it. This will help destroy our society. So I think if we are to leave out these punishment provisions, it would not do any good. In fact, it should stand as it is.

Sir, it is not intended to delete it.

It is a transfer of the penalty provisions from one column to another.

Yes. This is a formal amendment. It is not a deletion. It is a drafting error which is being corrected.

Sir, if there is no intention to delete, then I am all for it. I am asking this question because, as I mentioned just now at the beginning of the Committee stage, there are so many amendments to this important Bill.

Amendments (9) and (10) are connected, Mr Ng.

Sir, this is a formal amendment to correct a drafting error. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 8, line 28, to leave Out the dash in the seventh column and insert - "Maximum 20 years or $40,000 or both Minimum 3 years or $5,000 or both". Sir, as I have explained, this penalty provision is deleted in amendment (9) and transferred to the next column in amendment (10). So I can assure the Member for Punggol that it will be there. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 9, lines 4 to 6, to leave out the heading "Specified drug or specified quantity thereof involved" and insert "Specified drug or quantity thereof or drug with specified content involved". This, Sir, is again a consequential amendment.

Sir, on page 9, line 10, I would like the Minister to tell me what "punisable" actually means.

It should be "punishable". This will be corrected.

It is obviously a typographical error and will be corrected. Amendment agreed to. Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading, What day?

Now, Sir,I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Question proposed.

Sir, I would like to seek clarification from the Hon. Minister on the matter of administering the punishment of the rotan on those convicted for drug trafficking. I would like to know whether the number of strokes of the rotan are administered at one and the same time or are they meted out over different periods. I ask this question, Sir, because in a discussion with some hon. Members I got the impression that if a convicted person gets the rotan punishment all at one time, then the impact is felt. But if the punishment is given over a period of time, then even a penalty of 100 strokes of the rotan will not have any deterrent effect at all.

Sir, may I explain that the strokes of the rotan when imposed by the court are administered in Prison under the authority of the Director of Prisons, under the Prison regulations. Usually they are administered at one session. But when the strokes are administered, a medical officer will be there to decide whether or not there should be any respite.

Question put, and agreed to.

Order for Second Reading read. 6.59 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Earlier this year, in my Budget Statement, I announced two income tax changes affecting earned income relief and capital allowances for passenger cars used for business purposes. Clause 8(a) now proposes to effect an increase in the earned income relief from $1,000 to $2,000 and $3,000 for those over 55 and 60 years old respectively. This concession, Members may remember, was meant as an incentive for our skilled and experienced people to go on working beyond their normal retirement age. It was made also in recognition of the fact that the older people will need to spend more money staying healthy and getting to work. Clause 5 makes an amendment to section 19 which will limit capital allowances to a maximum of$ 15,000 for those passenger cars registered after 3rd March, 1975, and used for business purposes. There will also be several consequential amendments to this proposed limiting of capital allowances in order that it will not be easily circumvented. First, for those passenger cars acquired on or before 3rd March, 1975, it is also proposed to limit further claims for capital allowances to a maximum of $15,000. Next, for tax deduction purposes, running expenses incurred by those cars costing over $15,000 will no longer be fully deductible but will be proportionately reduced by the method in clause 4(b). Third, where deduction is allowable for renewal or replacement for the cost of replacing a car, the renewal allowance in respect of each car shall also be subject to a maximum of $15,000. Finally, under clause 6, it is proposed to make adjustments to the calculation of balancing charge or balancing allowance, which may arise on the sale or disposal of a car, in the light of limiting capital allowances to a maximum of $15,000. In March this year, when I moved the motion on the Civil List in Parliament, I mentioned that as from FY 75, the President will be paid his full salary of $12,000 per mensem, but the entire amount will be subject to income tax. Clause 3(a) will, therefore, subject the President's official emoluments to income tax from 1st April, 1975. The opportunity is also being taken under this Bill to incorporate some other proposed amendments which are part of the continuing process to improve upon and tighten up the existing legislation. Under clause 3(b), it is proposed to provide for the alternative of a reduced withholding tax, besides the present full exemption, on interest paid to lenders abroad for loans which are used for the economic or technological development of Singapore. In practice, it has been found that some flexibility in the tax relief would be useful. Certain foreign loans have merits, though not enough to qualify for total exemption from tax. At present, there is no alternative but to subject such loans to the full 40% tax. It is felt that in such cases a fairer treatment would be to grant a reduced tax rate if full exemption is not possible. To tidy up an earlier amendment in 1973 whereby deductions would not be allowed for life insurance premiums paid to insurance companies which have no office or branch in Singapore, it is proposed under clause 8(b) to extend this same principle and deny deductions for life insurance premiums paid to foreign governments. Some countries impose very heavy tax liabilities on profits of our shipping and air transport enterprises operating in them. In order to protect our own interests and also to strengthen our hands in any subsequent avoidance of double taxation negotiations with the country concerned, we should have a provision to enable us to apply reciprocal tax treatment, that is, impose equally heavy tax liabilities on the other country's shipping and air transport enterprises operating in Singapore. Clauses 7 and 9 provide for these enabling powers. In the course of administrating the Act, the Comptroller of Income Tax has been faced with an omission regarding penalties. At present, the Act does not provide for specific penalties on taxpayers who are obliged, on behalf of the Comptroller, to withhold tax on interest paid to lenders abroad and who subsequently do not hand over the withheld tax money to the Comptroller or even inform the Comptroller about it. This is akin to criminal breach of trust and it is proposed to make this serious offence punishable with penalties similar to those applicable for tax fraud, that is, a penalty of three times the tax withheld, a fine of up to $10,000 and the possibility of imprisonment. Interest charges are also proposed for any delay in handing over the withheld tax money to the Comptroller. These penalties are provided under Clause 10. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 7.05 p.m.

Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Income Tax (Amendment No. 2) Bill. I would like to refer to clause 8 of the Bill which amends section 39 of the principal Act by increasing the earned income relief of an individual who is 55 years or 60 years of age to $2,000 and $3,000 respectively. As mentioned by the Minister for Finance just now, the earned income relief is being increased so as to make it an incentive to these people to keep fit so as to be able to continue working. In this respect, would not the Minister for Finance seriously consider giving similar increased tax relief to those who are maintaining their aged parents? I believe that a relief of $750 allowed for the maintenance of an aged parent is insufficient. To my mind, this should be increased in view of the fact that the Government is now encouraging young couples to have smaller families and at the same time encouraging them to maintain their aged parents.

Sir, this is not a matter which comes within the intention of this Bill, which is to effect the changes I have announced in my Budget statement. Maybe this could be one for the next Budget debate. While I do not make any promises, this obviously can be brought up again on that particular day. In relation to this Bill which is, as I have explained, to bring into effect the changes announced at the last Budget, this particular suggestion may not be quite so appropriate.

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. 7.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Stamp (Amendment) Bill is to rectify anomalies and improve administration. The present title of the Act, the Stamp Act, is somewhat of a misnomer. It could, for example, be mistaken for an Act dealing with postage stamps. Clauses 2 and 3 accordingly propose to change the title of the Act from the "Stamp Act" to the "Stamp Duties Act" to reflect more accurately the nature of the provisions of the Act. At present, payment of consolidated stamp duty on cheques by banks has to be made on 1st January and 1st July. In practice, this requirement is difficult to comply with because banks close accounts at the end of the preceding months and cannot always be ready to pay duty on the 1st of the following months. Clause 4 proposes to extend the date of payment of consolidated stamp duty on cheques issued by banks by 6 days. The new dates for payment of duty will, therefore, be 7th January and 7th July in each year. I am also aware of the inconvenience encountered by statutory boards in paying stamp duty individually on a large number of receipts issued by them. Therefore, I propose, in clause 5 of the Bill, to extend the facility of consolidated payment of stamp duties to statutory boards. As in the case of banks, the dates for consolidated payment of stamp duty by statutory boards will be 7th January and 7th July in each year. At present, a conveyance or transfer on sale of property is subject to ad valorem stamp duty. However, it is possible for arrangements to be made whereby this duty can be avoided. It is an established principle that the stamp duty liability of a conveyance or transfer must be determined at the time when it is executed. Except for a voluntary disposition, if at the time of execution there is no sale, then the conveyance or transfer is not a "conveyance or transfer on sale" and therefore not subject to ad valorem stamp duty. An example of successful avoidance of duty based on the recognition of this principle was in the case of William Cory & Sons Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioner, United Kingdom, where an option agreement was made for the purchase of shares and at the same time, transfers were made "pursuant to the option agreement to protect purchasers' rights" but not to "pass any beneficial interest in the shares". The shares were held in trust for the vendors until the option was subsequently exercised. In this way, the transfers were not subject to ad valorem stamp duty because, technically, they were not "conveyances or transfers on sale". In Singapore, under a similar arrangement, the option agreement would attract only a nominal stamp duty of $1 while the transfers or conveyances so executed would be stamped at $10 each. Clause 6 proposes an amendment to close this loophole and provide for payment of ad valorem stamp duty on an option agreement involving conveyance or transfer of property in contemplation of a sale. The ad valorem stamp duty would be refunded if, not later than one year after the making or execution of such an option agreement, the option is not exercised and the sale not completed. It also provides for refund of excess duty paid if, within this validity period, the sale has been completed for a consideration lower than the value on which duty has been paid in the first instance. At present, a fee of $25 is charged when any instrument is brought before the Commissioner of Stamps for his judgment as to whether any duty is chargeable on that instrument. However, it is felt that an adjudication fee of $25 is too high, as in many cases the duty payable may be only $10 or less. Clause 7 reduces the adjudication fees from $25 to $10 for any instrument not involving immovable property. Adjudication fees for any instrument involving immovable property remain at $25. The Act presently provides that all instruments chargeable with duty and executed by any person shall be stamped before being executed. However, in the past, the Ministry of Finance had administratively allowed share certificates to be stamped within two weeks after execution because companies encountered difficulties in complying with the provision. Clause 8 of the Bill regularises the position and also extends the practice of stamping within two weeks after execution, to marketable securities. As a step to promote the development of a money market in Singapore, stamp duty on bills of exchange was abolished in March 1972. Clause 10 proposes to delete a number of references in the Act to "bills of exchange". The remaining amendments are either consequential in nature or are meant to tidy up procedural matters. 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. 7.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Honourable Members will be aware that for some time now the Government has been considering the question of introducing an export credit insurance scheme to help our exporters compete in foreign markets. I am glad to inform the House that arrangements have been finalised for an export credit insurance scheme in Singapore to be operated by a corporation owned jointly by the Government, banks and insurance companies. There is some doubt as to whether such a corporation is required to register as an insurer under the Insurance Act (Chapter 193). The Insurance Act does not explicitly define "insurance business", nor does it allow the Insurance Commissioner to exempt any particular type of insurance business from the provisions of the Act. The Act merely divides insurance business into life business and general business and treats as general business all insurance business which is not life business. This would imply, therefore, that export credit insurance is deemed to be general insurance for the purposes of the Insurance Act. However, export credit insurance is strictly not insurance business as it is generally understood. The Bill therefore seeks to amend the Insurance Act to make it clear that the corporation will not be required to be registered as an insurer under the Insurance 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 Hon Sui Sen]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill seeks to amend section 74 of the Companies Act so as to confer on the Minister the power to exempt certain corporations intending to issue debentures in Singapore from the requirement that they should appoint a trustee corporation as trustee for the debenture-holders. The proposed amendment would allow the Minister the discretion to impose such terms and conditions as he deems fit when granting such exemption. The definition of a corporation for the purposes of the Companies Act includes any body corporate, whether domiciled in Singapore or abroad. The requirements of section 74 of the Companies Act thus extend to supranational organisations and government-owned companies which may wish to issue debentures in Singapore. In international bond markets, the normal practice is for the borrower to appoint a fiscal agent rather than a trustee. The fiscal agent would be responsible for the payments of interest and of redemption proceeds to debenture-holders. The more onerous requirement, under section 74 of our Companies Act, of the appointment of a trustee has discouraged a number of reputable borrowers of the highest credit standing from issuing debentures in Singapore. As a further step in promoting the development of an international bond market in Singapore, I propose to waive the requirement of a trustee in respect of debentures issued in Singapore by reputable borrowers, especially supranational institutions. The proposed amendment to section 74 of the Companies Act would allow me to impose certain conditions before granting such waiver in cases where I do not consider an unconditional waiver justified. 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.

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

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 6, to leave out "subsection" and insert "section". The reason is that "section" is really more appropriate because subsections (5A), (5B) and (5C) are referred to. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 9, after "conditions", to insert "subject". This amendment is proposed to improve on the language. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, lines 11 and 12, to leave out "corporation specified in subsection (5B) of this section" and insert "prescribed corporation". This amendment is also being proposed to improve on the language. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: In page 2, line 14, to leave out "subsection" and insert "section".-[Mr Hon Sui Sen]. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 7.26 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In October, 1970, the Government approved the broad policy of metrication. Since then, significant progress had been achieved. Except for certain technical departments, the public sector has completely metricated. Conversions have also taken place in industries. For example, the construction and engineering industries are substantially metric. As for the retail trade, all major supermarkets went metric from 1st July, 1974. Pre-packed goods are now available in standard metric sizes, textiles are sold by the metre and petrol dispensed by the litre. Efforts are now being made to encourage housewives to use metric units in preparation for the day of complete metrication. In addition to our efforts at metrication, the Government has found it increasingly necessary to regulate weighing and measuring instruments used in trade. As a further measure of consumer protection, it has also been found necessary to regulate the manner in which certain goods, especially those pre-packed, are to be sold. In the light of these efforts, it is necessary to amend and re-enact the present Weights and Measures Act. The Bill firstly defines the units of measurements permitted for trade purposes and authorises the use of metric units in place of local and imperial units of weights and measures in areas and places of trade as decided by the Minister in charge. Exceptions are made for transactions in medicinal drugs and precious metals and stones where traditional units may continue to apply. As a measure of consumer protection, the Bill requires weighing and measuring instruments used for trade to be constructed of approved patterns, specifications, material and principles of construction to ensure their accuracy. To reduce opportunity for cheating, the Bill requires instruments used for trade to be tested by an inspector of Weights and Measures and manufacturers and repairers of weighing instruments to be licensed. Further, shortweight and misrepresentation of goods sold will be regarded as an offence. As a further measure for consumer protection, the Bill requires some goods to be sold by a particular unit of measure, some by approved sizes and pre-packed goods to show clearly the net quantity of their contents. Where insisted upon by customers, the Bill now provides that retailers should sell in metric units. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Third Reading read. 7.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Members of the House would have read the official report of the Select Committee and the reasons for the proposed amendments. In summary, the submissions received by the Committee generally reflect that the Bill is acceptable to those who have a vested interest in its provisions - those who deal in traditional Chinese medicinal preparations and those dealing in western type medicinal preparations. The representations made, as Members will note, are for fear that rules or regulations, if applied rigidly, will cause difficulty to the trade. The fear has also been expressed that the fees imposed may be so high as to cause financial difficulty. I would like to reiterate that the purpose of the Bill is not to stifle trade by rigid implementation, neither is it the Government's intention to increase revenue by such a legislation. Because patent or ready-made medicinal preparations are easily available from shops and even sarabat stalls, it is necessary that the consumer be protected by ensuring that the contents of such medicinal preparations conform to standards of safety, efficacy and reliability, particularly when many patent medicinal preparations can be bought without a doctor's prescription. In this connection the World Health Assembly at its last sitting has called upon member-states to participate in a certification scheme for the quality control of pharmaceutical products moving in international commerce. My Ministry is taking action to participate in such a scheme as well as looking into applying the revised requirements for good practices in the manufacture and quality control of drugs as formulated in the report to the Director-General of the World Health Organisation. Such a practice on an international approach will no doubt ensure that those who manufacture medicinal products for international trade conform with international standards of manufacturing, hire properly trained personnel and meet other requirements, such as properly built premises and storage areas as well as equipment which are of a reasonable standard that will ensure that the consumer is given a fair deal. Conforming with agreed international standards locally will mean that Singapore manufactured medicinal products will be able to find international outlets as well. The major amendment to the Bill is the inclusion of the Minister for National Development as the Minister who will be responsible for performing functions relevant to veterinary medicinal products. As a consequence the Director of Primary Production will be responsible for the licensing of veterinary medicinal products. The powers that are conferred upon the Minister for National Development or the Director of Primary Production in the Bill will complement powers that have been vested in them under the provision of the Animals and Birds Act. This, however, does not mean that my Ministry and the Ministry of National Development will work separately, Where there are common areas of interest the two Ministries will be working together in close liaison. Section 73 of the Act empowers the Minister for Health to establish committees which will comprise persons who will be invited for their expertise they possess. Such cooperation is necessary so that veterinary medicinal products consumed by animals do not contaminate or cause adverse effects on human beings when they are slaughtered for table meat. The other related consequential amendments in addition to this major amendment are the inclusion of the definitions of veterinary medicinal products, veterinary surgeon, veterinary centre and veterinary biologics. The amendments to section 39 are necessary so as to restrict the use of the title "dispensary" to only pharmacists, doctors and veterinary surgeons, in other words, persons who have been properly trained and qualified. This is to prevent the abuse of the titles. This is also in conformity with the provisions of the Pharmacist Registration Act which contains similar provisions. Section 74 has also been amended to include the word "storage or supply" so that premises other than pharmacies which sell, supply or store medicinal products can also be brought within the ambit of this Bill. As it stands, section 74 only provides for the registration of premises other than pharmacies but are used for the retail sale of medicinal products. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed."-[Dr Lee Chiaw Meng] Adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes to Eight o'clock p.m.