Hon Sui Sen
Singapore
“Sir, I must inform the Member for Rochore that the companies are run on the basis of private sector companies, i.e. their budgets are drawn up by their boards of directors. I do not know to what extent their budgets follow Government budgets but they are certainly not regulated in the sense that Government budgets are rigidly enforced.”
“Perhaps the Member is referring to PIE's operations with respect to the Armed Forces. PIE provides some of the supplies for feeding our army and other armed forces. If the private sector is equally viable, equally able to supply foodstuffs, I see no reason why they should not also compete with the PIE.”
“Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for the Environment and Minister for Communications if he will request the Port of Singapore Authority to consider providing transport alternatively paying a transport allowance to all employees of the PSA who have been moved out of the PSA Staff quarters in Blair Plain and as a result of which have been put…”
“INTRACO is a company in which the Government has some equity. I believe the proportion is somewhere around 20%. So in a sense it is not exactly a Government controlled company, although 20%, of course, is a fairly considerable share. In the case of PIE, the answer is yes, it is a Government company.”
“The dividend yields for the three holding companies were nil, The yields for the operating companies were nil for 34 companies (including eight which have yet to commence operations), 1% to 10% for five companies, more than 10% but less than 20% for 10 companies, and at least 20% for nine companies.”
“Sir, the simple answer to that is no, for the purpose of this Bill. This Bill merely enacts legislation to implement the 1982 Budget concessions.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,492 lines we hold for Hon Sui Sen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 30.
“Sir, these figures for investment appear in my Economic Survey of Singapore for 1975, which the Member for Sembawang will now have received a copy. I do not know whether he wishes me to repeat them. For 1975 the Member will see from page 62 (Table 3.4, cols. 151-2.) that investment commitments came to $400.4 million, of which $267.3 million were from foreign companies and $133.1 million from local investors. They were for 54 projects, of which 27 will be wholly foreign-owned. 21 joint ventures and six wholly locally-owned. The figures used are for investment commitments as the indicator of our results in investment promotion. Investment commitments comprise the amount recorded by the Economic Development Board, which foreign and local industrialists have firm plans to spend on fixed assets in new projects and expansion of existing plants. Investment commitments for 1975 fell short of our previous record. In 1974, investment commitments came to $821.8 million, of which $678.4 million are foreign and $1 43.4 million local. These were in 56 projects, of which 28 were wholly foreign, 20 joint ventures and eight wholly local. With the recovery in the world economy, entrepreneurs, both foreign and local, will be more prepared to invest. Together with reinforced promotion efforts. I expect the results for this year will improve. INCOME TAX (Raising of personal reliefs) 7. Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Minister for Finance if he will consider amending legislation to revise upwards both the personal allowance and earned income relief under the Income Tax Act in the light of the present cost of living.”
“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. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL Order for Second Reading read. 7.26 p.m.”
“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, 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.”
“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. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 7.23 p.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -”
“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.”
“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. COMPANIES (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“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. INSURANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 7.15 p.m.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. STAMP (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 7.10 p.m.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. SINGAPORE FAMILY PLANNING AND POPULATION BOARD (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.40 p.m.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Sir, I do not think I can say very much in this respect other than that the matter should be referred to the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board which will administer the Bill. I expect that the Board will look into the matter and take whatever measures are appropriate. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP BILL (As reported from Select Committee) Order for Third Reading read. 3.44 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." The Travel Agents Bill was committed to a Select Committee by a Resolution of Parliament passed on 19th August, 1975. Two written representations were received and considered by the Select Committee. The Select Committee, in its Report to Parliament on 28th October, 1975, has not recommended any amendment to the Travel Agents Bill, which is therefore presented again in its original form. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“STAMP (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Stamp Act (Chapter 147 of the Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Hon Sui Sen; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. INSURANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Insurance Act.(Chapter 193 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Hon Sui Sen; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. COMPANIES (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL "to amend the Companies Act (Chapter 185 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Hon Sui Sen; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available Sit ting of Parliament, and to be printed. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL "to amend and consolidate the law relating to the use of uniform weights and measures throughout Singapore", presented by the Minister for Science and Technology (Dr Lee Chiaw Meng); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. NGEE ANN TECHNICAL COLLEGE (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.35 p.m.”
“REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Regulation of Employment Act (Chapter 127 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour (Mr Ong Pang Boon); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. PROBATION OF OFFENDERS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Probation of Offenders Act (Chapter 117 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Social Affairs (Encik Othman bin Wok); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. SINGAPORE SPORTS COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Singapore Sports Council Act, 1973 (No. 44 of 1973)", presented by Encik Othman bin Wok; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the University of Singapore Act (Chapter 181 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs and Education (Mr Chua Sian Chin); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1973 (No.5 of 1973)", presented by Mr Chua Sian Chin; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed; INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL "to amend the Income Tax Act (Chapter 141 of the Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Mr Hon Sui Sen); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand from the Jurong Town Corporation that it has already taken necessary measures to improve its maintenance services in the residential, industrial and other areas of Jurong Town. Term maintenance contractors have been selected based not so much on the cheapest tender as on their capabilities of providing good, prompt and efficient services at a reasonable price. If the service rendered by any contractor is not satisfactory, his contract will he terminated. I understand also that the Jurong Town Corporation has recently reorganised the personnel in its Estates Section to be more vigilant in its supervision of its maintenance and conservancy works and to provide a better service to its tenants and lessees. The technical staff of the Section have been instructed that, instead of waiting for complaints from the tenants, they should inspect their respective areas in the housing estate every day to ensure their cleanliness. I believe all these measures are beginning to show results and the situation should improve further. BILLS INTRODUCED 3.29 p.m. SINGAPORE FAMILY PLANNING AND POPULATION BOARD (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL "to amend the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board Act (Chapter 168 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Health (Dr Toh Chin Chye); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. DENTISTS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Dentists Registration Act (Chapter 215 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Dr Toh Chin Chye; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that the charges at the Jurong Town Swimming Pool and the Jurong Town Stadium and its ancillary playing field at Yung Ho Road are the same as those charged for similar facilities in other parts of the Republic by the Authorities concerned. These charges are already concessional since none of these Authorities pay their way and none of them charge the full cost. As for the Japanese and Chinese Gardens, it is not practical to have different admission charges for local residents and citizens living outside Jurong Town. In any case, discrimination is undesirable as these gardens are meant for the enjoyment of all Singaporeans. However, I would suggest that, since there are concessionary rates for large groups, and for combined visits to both the Japanese and Chinese Gardens, the Member for Jurong may wish to consider how such visits at reduced rates can be arranged through the Jurong Community Centre, schools, residents associations, citizens consultative committees and other organisations. JURONG TOWN CORPORATION (Maintenance services to tenants and lessees) 16. Mr Ho Kah Leong asked the Minister for Finance if he will ascertain from the Jurong Town Corporation whether the Corporation will look into the matter of providing prompt and efficient maintenance services to all its tenants and lessees.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, no concession is necessary in the circumstances suggested by the Member for Serangoon Gardens, as no estate duty is payable. RECREATIONAL PLACES IN JURONG TOWN (Concessions on admission charges) 15. Mr Ho Kah Leong asked the Minister for Finance if he will ascertain from the Jurong Town Corporation whether the Corporation will consider granting local residents concessions on admission charges to recreational places in Jurong Town.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Though the existing Tourist Promotion Board Act (Cap. 205) empowers the Tourist Promotion Board, with my approval, to regulate standards which tourist enterprises are expected to maintain, these powers do not extend to tourist enterprises providing services to out-bound travellers. It is proposed, therefore, to amend section 2 of the Act, so that the conduct of tourist enterprises engaged in providing services to both inbound and out-bound travellers can be regulated. This is a consequential amendment of the Travel Agents Bill which I have earlier moved its Second Reading. In line with international practice of identifying a national tourist organisation through the name of its country, the name of the Board will be changed from "Tourist Promotion Board" to "Singapore Tourist Promotion Board". This not only facilitates international communication but also gives official authority for the already widely recognised abbreviation "STPB". Section 16 of the Act is also to be amended so that the Board, like other statutory bodies, will observe more closely the financial procedures laid down by the Auditor-General. 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]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“In the event of default, the second-tier guarantee will be invoked first so as not to drain the cash reserves proper of the Fund. The Board is satisfied that the Compensation Fund Scheme will be welcomed by the tourist industry as one effective way of relieving problems caused by malpractices of unscrupulous travel agents. Major travel agencies, which assisted in the formulation of the Scheme, do not consider the proposed $5,000 cash payment and $20,000 securities as unduly onerous. A Compensation Fund Committee, with powers to make payments, will be appointed by the Minister. The assets of the Fund, though the property of the Board, will be kept separate from all other property, and will be held in trust. The Board may, after consultation with the Committee, invest funds not immediately required. Any licensee who fraudulently converts to his own use, fares or other monies paid by travellers shall be liable, on conviction, `to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years. This Bill, therefore, provides some safeguards against malpractices by travel agents. However, those who travel would be well advised to always exercise their judgment in purchasing services from travel agents, even if they are licensed. Disbursements from the Compensation Fund will not compensate in full measure for losses of money and, more important, time. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Last year, no less than 1,230,000 visitors came to Singapore compared with 580,000 visitors in 1970. Earnings from tourism increased from $280 million in 1970 to $758 million in 1974, contributing respectively 4.8% and 5.9% of Gross Domestic Product in these two years. Currently, the Tourist Promotion Board is empowered by the Tourist Promotion Board Act (Cap. 205) to license only travel agents engaged in inbound travel. But instances of malpractices by agents handling out-bound travel have been reported. It is, therefore, proposed to license these travel agents as well. The Travel Agents Bill, 1975, will empower the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board to regulate the activities of all travel agents in Singapore, whether handling in-bound or out-bound tours. All tourist enterprises will have to be licensed. In considering the grant of a licence, the Board will take into account the character and reputation of the applicant. Any applicant previously convicted of any offence involving fraud or moral turpitude will be denied a licence. The Board will also impose any condition as is reasonable, and to vary or to revoke any licence so granted. However, any person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Board may, within a month, appeal to the Minister whose decision will be final. A Compensation Fund will be created to mitigate the difficulties of travellers cheated, or left stranded, by their travel agents. It will be made up of levies to be imposed on tourist enterprises as a condition of licensing. The Board has proposed that the levy be made up of two tiers, comprising a first-tier primary cash levy of $5,000 and a second-tier of acceptable instruments or guarantees for a value of $20,000.”
“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. TRAVEL AGENTS BILL Order for Second Reading read. 5.37 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill proposes to repeal the Rubber Estates Assessment Act (Chapter 145) and the Rubber Estates (Surcharge on Assessment) Act (Chapter 146) and to tax all rubber estates under the Property Tax Act (Chapter 144) and the Property Tax (Surcharge) Act, 1974, with effect from 1st January, 1976. The assessment of rubber estates is a relic of the past. In the present circumstances, it would not be appropriate to perpetuate the practice of charging rubber estate assessment according to yield, particularly when this is less than what is payable as property tax. Moreover, all other land in Singapore is subject to property tax. The proposed measure would achieve equitable tax treatment on all land. There would be no adverse effect on the economy as the production of natural rubber in Singapore is on the decline and is rather insignificant. Clause 4 enables the Chief Assessor to amend, as soon as possible, the Valuation List to include rubber estates. Clause 5 provides that any outstanding liability or any legal proceedings in respect of such liability shall not be affected by the repeal of these enactments. Clause 6 is a transitional provision. Owners of rubber estates are allowed to continue paying taxes levied under the repealed enactments. Such payment of assessment shall be deemed as property tax. When the Valuation List is authenticated, the Comptroller of Property Tax shall make the necessary adjustment of property tax payable on the rubber estates with effect from 1st January, 1976. This may result in owners having to pay more taxes or to claim refund of excess taxes paid, as the case may be. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the very short answer is that we are prepared to give the advice, but perhaps what has been misunderstood is that we cannot make the decision for the investors. They have to decide whether any particular industry which they want to set up is likely to succeed. Where it is obvious that there is really not enough market, say, for textile goods, at this particular period of time, the EDB is right in advising them that perhaps textile manufacturing is not an industry to go into now. 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. RUBBER ESTATES ASSESSMENT (REPEAL) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 5.32 p.m.”
“I can assure him that there is no intention of doing so and if they have any interest in investing more money or if they need advice in any way, whether financial or technical, the EDB and the Ministry of Finance (Development Division) will be most happy to provide any assistance they can.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful for the advice which both Members of the House have given in regard to investments in Singapore. We realise the necessity for more investments not only from people outside Singapore but also from people who are already manufacturing here. I am, of course, a bit taken aback by the suggestion of the Member for Sembawang that the Economic Development Board is falling down on its job because the applications have been left undecided for half a year to one year. I would have thought that the general period of time taken for a decision is more like half a month to one month. If the Member for Sembawang has any information of such applications, I for one would certainly be very glad to hear of these cases because with the emphasis that we are now placing upon industrial investment and with more intensified promotion efforts by our offices I would be very surprised that there are any applications which have been left undecided for one year or so. As for the other criticism that some of the staff have not been giving good advice, again I would be very interested in knowing the kind of advice which is considered unsatisfactory, and I can assure, the Member for Sembawang that if his criticism is justified it will certainly be corrected by not only the Economic Development Board itself but also by, I think, an admonition from the Ministry of Finance. I do not, however, anticipate that there can be very many of these cases. The EDB is generally regarded even by foreign investors as being very efficient, and I am surprised to hear about this. It may be that this criticism emanates from existing manufacturers. The Member for Delta suggested that we are neglecting the existing manufacturers.”
“Thus, section 6 of the Act is being amended to extend the tax relief period of a pioneer enterprise from the present fixed period of five years to a maximum of ten years. The longer period of tax relief will enable desirable industries with long gestation periods to effectively enjoy pioneer tax incentives and thus provide a more effective promotional tool for the further upgrading of manufacturing skills and technology in Singapore. The maximum ten years' tax relief will only be granted to the most deserving cases involving large capital investments and sophisticated technology and manufacturing skills. The longer period of pioneer status will only apply to pioneer certificates awarded after the date these amendments come into force. Furthermore, to encourage the establishment of small but highly specialised supporting industries, section 5 of the Act is also being amended to dispense with the requirement that a company must incur a fixed capital expenditure of not less than $1 million before it is eligible for pioneer status. With the establishment of a widening range of large scale manufacturing plants in Singapore, there is an increasing need for specialised supporting industries to supply parts and components to the larger manufacturing plants. Such supporting industries often involve sophisticated technology and skills but owing to their smaller size their fixed capital investment may not reach $1 million. Removal of this minimum investment requirement will enable pioneer tax incentive to be used to promote the establishment of such desirable supporting industries which are now playing an increasingly important role in the further integration and development of our industries. Consequential amendments are also being made to sections 10 and 25 of the Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Since the early days of Singapore's drive towards industrialisation, one of the more effective instruments of investment promotion has been exemption from income tax granted under the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act. Under the Act, companies implementing new and desirable projects could be granted pioneer status which exempts them from income tax for a period of five years. By the end of April, 1975, there were a total of 411 pioneer enterprises, investing some $3,100 million and manufacturing a wide range of products in Singapore. However, as we strive towards higher levels of skills and technology in our industrialisation effort, we have found that the existing tax relief period of five years is too short to provide an effective tax incentive for the more sophisticated types of industries which we are now trying to attract to Singapore. These new industries such as machine tools, diesel engines, precision instruments, aircraft components, specialised electrical equipment and industrial machinery involve much heavier capital investments in plant and machinery and require more sophisticated manufacturing skills which are only acquired after long periods of training. Such industries have long gestation periods and take much longer time to become profitable, some breaking even only in the fourth or fifth year of production. A five-year tax relief period would therefore not benefit them to any extent and a longer period of pioneer status is now necessary to encourage such new industries to establish in Singapore.”
“Sir, while I did not mention it, I think the reason is perfectly clear. There is now an investigation and I would like to be given information on matters which the inspector may be able to give, because in the course of his investigation he may have come across matters which might suggest that an offence has been committed. This Bill would then enable him to make such disclosure to the Minister without having to make an interim report. The need of this particular piece of legislation was discovered when in looking through Our Act, in comparison with the English Act, we found that the deficiency in our Act prevented information to be given except by way of an interim report. This we thought was not necessary and, therefore, I felt that this particular Bill should be introduced and taken through all its stages in this House. 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. NGEE ANN TECHNICAL COLLEGE (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Ngee Ann Technical College Act (Chapter 179 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Science and Technology (Dr Lee Chiaw Meng); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. PORT OF SINGAPORE AUTHORITY (AMENDMENT) BILL 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." Section 196 of the Companies Act deals with the appointment of inspectors to investigate the affairs of a Declared Company. The Bill now before the House seeks to amend this section so as to enable an inspector to inform the Minister of any matters coming to his knowledge as a result of the investigation tending to show that an offence has been committed. The Minister may then take such steps as he deems fit. Under the law as it now stands, an inspector may only disclose such information to the Minister when he makes his report. The law in Singapore is in exactly the same state as it was in England prior to 1967. When a revised Companies Act was introduced in the United Kingdom in 1967, the corresponding section of the English Act was amended so that now an inspector may, without the necessity of making an interim report, inform the Department of Trade (which is the appointing authority for inspectors in the UK) of matters disclosing the probability that an offence has been committed. It is with a view to achieving the same result in our laws that the proposed amendment to section 196 of our Companies Act is now before the House. When this Bill becomes law, an inspector may, at any time in the course of his investigation, without the necessity of making an interim report, make disclosures of such matters. Honourable Members will appreciate the importance of this Bill which would enable prompt and speedy action to be taken whenever an inspector whose duty it is to investigate the affairs of a company obtains incriminating evidence in the course of his duties. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.37 p.m.”
“Now, Sir. Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the Bill, laid upon the Table by the Minister. Typed copies of the Bill distributed to Members.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Companies Act (Chapter 185 of the Revised Edition)". Bill read the First time. Second Reading”
“Sir, in my Ministerial Statement I strove to make it clear that the Stock Exchange made various inquiries and certain replies were received, but many of the replies had unsatisfactory features that prompted the Stock Exchange to want an assessment made by an independent accountant. I think that is the present stage, at which most of us, as far as knowledge of the Haw Par operations are concerned, would like to have a proper financial assessment of the value of the company. Having regard to the statements which have been made regarding Tengku Razaleigh, I am sure he himself would like to know the financial standing of a company in which he is going to have a very close association. We would all like to know what the state of the company is. One of the purposes of appointing the Inspector is to inquire into whether there has been any improper application of company funds and, therefore, in the process I have no doubt that he would come to some kind of true assessment of the financial state of affairs in Haw Par. MAINTENANCE ORDERS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 5.40 p.m.”
“So I would congratulate the Finance Minister for taking these measures in the light of some of the revelations that have just been made known to us. I think this is all for the good of our Stock Exchange to ensure that confidence in the Stock Exchange is always there. We have had the unpleasant experience previously of a boom in the share market and how prices came down overnight, and in the end it was the small-time shareholders who suffered such operations. This is one case of a very big-time operator. So this action is very timely and perhaps this experience would encourage the Ministry of Finance to think of further measures, as mentioned by the Member for Delta, to plug the loopholes that may exist in the present legislation with regard to the management of the Stock Exchange. Mr J. F. Conceicao (Katong): Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Minister indicate, if possible, the extent of losses incurred on the part of the investing public, or any other kind of losses resulting from the irregularities he has referred to?”
“Sir, I am not aware of such measures. I hope the statement which he has made merely reflected the dissatisfaction, discontent or unhappiness that a transaction which he has been concerned with has not been put through. I think there were other factors of which he may not be aware. The question of the investigation which has been initiated has not in any way been due, as I explained in my Ministerial Statement, to the particular transaction in which he is interested. I see no reason, as I said in my Statement, for, if he so desires, a new basis on which some association between PERNAS and Haw Par should not be Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Mr Speaker, Sir, following what the Member for Toa Payoh has said, I think the matter of interest and concern to members of the public and to some of us is, of course, the statement by Tengku Razaleigh about retaliatory measures that they are contemplating. That was unfortunate because it gave a wrong twist to the measures taken by the Finance Ministry. I think it has been stated from the outset that the whole intention behind this exercise is purely to protect public interest, i.e, the interest of the small-time shareholders. This is not something which comes out of the blue. This measure is a natural sequence of the several measures that have been taken by the Finance Minister earlier over the question of ensuring the proper conduct and management of companies, particularly those listed in the Stock Exchange, so that the interests of the smalltime shareholders are protected. I myself find it difficult to believe that the Singapore Government would want to frustrate any intention of the Malaysian Government to have a greater control of the interest of the companies that operate in Malaysia. That is not possible.”
“There is no way in which we can prevent the failure of companies. It is a fact of business life that some companies succeed, some companies fail; some companies are well managed and make a handsome return on investment by shareholders, while others are badly managed and suffer misfortune because of the acts of officers. In the case of this particular transaction, although it has not been allowed by the Securities Industry Council, the company itself is still operating effectively in all its divisions. I do not think there is any comparison with Eupoc, at least for the moment.”
“I accept the suggestion that there is a need for greater contact with the Malaysian Government. But at the moment the transaction is based on a purely commercial basis. I realise that Tengku Razaleigh is an eminent personality in Malaysia but in this matter, while he may be pursuing the wishes of the Government on the control of natural assets, his status is that of Chairman of PERNAS Securities and not as a member of the Malaysian Government. I will, of course, be very happy to try and re-establish contact with him on the assumption that he accepts the assurance that there is no intention to frustrate the wishes of his government, whatever these wishes are in relation to this particular operation. But, of course, I must stress that having established the Securities Industry Council and the Stock Exchange of Singapore any transaction affecting companies which comes within their purview must receive the attention of both the Stock Exchange and the Securities Industry Council. Mr Yeo Choo Kok (Delta): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, there was Eupoc. Now we have Haw Par. Could the Minister tell the House whether new measures are being taken or will be taken to prevent the same thing happening again in the future?”
“With regard to the first question which the Member for Jalan Kayu has raised, I agree that perhaps greater contact can be established with Malaysia. I hope that my present Statement will clear the air that there has been no intention whatsoever to frustrate any plan of the Malaysian Government in the control of its assets and that this would be accepted as a statement of our total attitude towards this particular transaction. With regard to the Member's second question on whether the Board of Directors as at present constituted is able to manage its day-to-day, affairs of the company, I am not able to express any definite opinion because I have not been acquainted with the members of the Board of Directors. But I believe that these are executive directors responsible for the operational management of the company other than the management of financial affairs or the dealings in shares or stocks. I can see no reason why they should not be equally effective in carrying out the day-to-day operations of the company as they have done before. I believe the company's operating divisions are able, by and large, to make an adequate return on the capital invested in them. In view of the fact that the Chairman, Managing Director and Deputy Director, who must be key members of the Board of Directors, have made themselves unavailable to the company, the remaining members of the Board of Directors must be commended at least for staying on to carry out their duties and I am sure that these efforts of theirs should assure shareholders to some extent that the company is still being managed.”
“The company's explanation of the diminution in asset values was vague and the Exchange asked for a fuller statement. In its reply dated 27th June, the company said that the figures for the geographical distribution of its assets were based on unpublished, unaudited balance sheet as at 31st March 1975 and not, as the Exchange had done, based on the audited balance sheet as at 31st December 1974; that a "substantial" part of the company's income was derived from Malaysia, but it was not in the shareholders' interest to publish the exact percentage; and that the dimunition in asset values was due to the following factors: $ million Goodwill on consolidation 18,363 Excess of book vaue over marker value of investments 83,243 Recovery of shortfall in market value of investments as at 30-4-75 (52,095) Profits after taxation minority interest and extraordinary items ( 4,951) Drop in market values between balance sheet dates of M&G offer document and 31-Dec-1973 68,219 ----------- 112,779 =========== 4 On 4th July, the Exchange wrote to the company saying that, in view of the many unsatisfactory features in the replies it has received from the company on the questions of geographical distribution of assets and the diminution of asset values, the company should furnish an independent Accountant's Report so as to avoid further confusion in the minds of the investing public. No reply has yet been received from the company. 5.25 p.m.”
“The directors sought to justify this enormous capital gain for PERNAS on the ground that participation by PERNAS was essential for the further development of one of Haw Par's major assets, namely, London Tin. 2 On 4th June, the Exchange wrote to Mr Ogilvy Watson for an explanation of the diminution in value of shareholders' assets from $234.363 million (as stated in the offer document for the takeover of Motor & General Underwriters Investment Holdings Ltd in January 1974) to $12 1.584 million (as stated in the company's Press Release of 28th May). The Exchange also asked for an explanation of the company's announcement that 57% of the Group's assets were located in Malaysia, 17% in Singapore and 26% in Hong Kong. Finally, the company was asked to explain why there was no mention, in the company's Press Release of 28th May, of options on 2.125 million shares granted to certain directors. The company's reply of 16th June stated that the diminution in the value of shareholders' assets was mainly attributable to Consolidation of goodwill and excess of book value over market value; that the figures for the geographical distribution of assets were based on the net book assets employed in each country after deducting holding company's liabilities; and that no interest in the options had yet arisen as the options had not yet been accepted by the directors concerned and that, in any event, the offer was received only on 2nd June. 3 On 25th June, the Exchange informed the company that, on the basis of net book assets employed in each country after deducting holding company's liabilities, the proportion of assets employed in Malaysia was only 15.5% not 57% as claimed by the company, and that no more than 22% of the company's income was derived from Malaysia.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the investigations by the two Inspectors are to discover, first, the facts regarding Spydar Securities (Hong Kong) Ltd and a Unit Trust, second, the circumstances regarding the offer of share options to specific directors contrary to the law and third, the reasons for the diminution of assets of Haw Par Brothers International Ltd. The investigations cannot prevent, and indeed were never intended to prevent, the Malaysian Government taking control of any percentage of the equity of any company operating in Malaysia, be it in tin mining or rubber and palm oil plantations or any other corporate investment. These investigations are designed to unravel the facts related to wrongdoing which appears to have been committed by at least two of the directors who have resigned and left Singapore. The Government is under an obligation to unravel the facts and to protect the assets of innocent shareholders of Haw Par as best it can. Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps I may be allowed to read the Annex which I have tabled and which I had previously intended to circulate to Members except that insufficient copies were available. The Annex is on: Queries by the Stock Exchange of Singapore and Replies from Haw Par Brothers International Ltd. 1 On 29th May, the Stock Exchange of Singapore pointed out to Haw Par that the market value of the 70.413 million shares it proposed to issue to PERNAS Securities Sdn Bhd was $54.6 million more than the market value of the assets of Tradewinds (M) Sdn Bhd. In reply, the directors of Haw Par said that, for the purpose of the transaction, they had used the net asset backing rather than the much higher market value of Haw Par shares. But Tradewinds, whose assets were all quoted securities, was valued at market value.”
“They may have believed that, because of its connection with PERNAS and because the transaction appears as the carrying out of the Malaysian Government policy of controlling its own natural resources, the deal would not be subject to the scrutiny of the regulatory agencies. The directors of Haw Par who have resigned and left Singapore after the appointment of the two Inspectors must have believed that they could ignore complying with any of the regulations of the Stock Exchange or the Code on Takeovers and Mergers. They do not seem keen to help ascertain and clarify the true present financial position of Haw Par for the benefit of shareholders and investors, in spite of the discrepancies between the Haw Par figures given for the present transactions and those it had presented on other occasions, and in its Annual Reports and accounts. Unless we are prepared to accept the dismantling of our regulatory agencies, the normal procedures must be observed in the interests of the securities industry and the investing public. But I restate my assurance to Tengku Razaleigh that there is no intention to frustrate the legitimate aspirations of Malaysia in the control of its own natural resources. The procedures of the Securities Industry Council allow for prior consultation and advice on any proposals which may be contemplated. The Securities Industry Council has ruled on the arrangements which have been submitted. It is possible that if these proposals are now formally withdrawn, new and suitable alternative proposals can be submitted for consultation and consideration. The investigation by the Inspectors, however, will continue irrespective of the outcome of these discussions or of any possible fresh negotiations between Haw Par and PERNAS.”
“It is to be hoped that both these gentlemen will, in accordance with their assurances of cooperation and affording every assistance to the Inspectors, duly show up when requested to do so. However, up till now the Inspectors' notices to these two gentlemen have not been answered. The Inspectors have accordingly taken steps provided for under the Companies Act to compel their appearance. Motion papers have been filed in the High Court this morning, and leave to serve these papers outside this jurisdiction is being sought. Once this is obtained, the actual contempt proceedings, consequent upon a continued failure to appear on behalf of a witness so required to appear before the Inspectors, will be heard. It is a matter of the utmost importance that pending compliance with the ruling of the Securities Industry Council, no major asset of the Haw Par group of companies should be disposed of. As a precaution, the present Board of Directors have called for the immediate resignations of Messrs Gammell, Ogilvy Watson and Tamblyn from the Boards of all subsidiaries and associate companies of Haw Par Brothers International Ltd. Inevitably there has been speculation in the Press as to the repercussion of the investigation on the proposed deal between Haw Par and PERNAS. The Securities Industry Council recognises that there may well be sound commercial logic in Haw Par entering into an arrangement with PERNAS. So long as the requirements of the Companies Act and the Takeover Code are complied with, there is no reason why the two companies should not enter into any such arrangement. The Haw Par directors originally concerned with initiating the negotiations appeared to have tried to force the transaction through the Securities Industry Council and the Stock Exchange.”
“The existence of Spydar Securities (Hong Kong) Ltd was never disclosed to the shareholders of Haw Par Brothers International. There was also evidence of directors setting up Unit Trust operations to circumvent the provisions of the Companies Act. There appeared also to have been other irregularities or breaches of the Companies Act relating to share options given to some directors which have not been disclosed to shareholders as required by the law. On 2nd July I consulted the Securities Industry Council, whose unanimous advice was that Haw Par Brothers International Ltd should be made a Declared Company under Part IX of the Companies Act and that an Inspector should be appointed to investigate its affairs. It was unacceptable that a cloud of suspicion should hang over a leading Singapore-registered company, whose shares are quoted on the Stock Exchange of Singapore and are held by a wide cross-section of the public in Singapore and Malaysia. On 10th and 11th July, I appointed two Inspectors -- Mr G. Starforth Hill, a senior member of the Bar, and Mr PG. Grundy, senior partner of an international firm of Accountants - to investigate the affairs of the Company. A public statement issued by my Ministry made it clear that recent developments in respect of a proposed takeover of Haw Par by PERNAS had no direct bearing on my decision to appoint Inspectors. The appointment of the Inspectors was quickly followed by the resignations and the rather hasty departures from Singapore of both Mr Ogilvy Watson and Mr Tamblyn. It is of course open to the Inspectors to invoke the powers conferred on them under the Companies Act to obtain the evidence of persons who, in the opinion of the Inspectors, would be able to assist them with the investiga- tion.”