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 19 of 30.
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 5, line 35, to leave out "for" and insert "from". This is a typographical error. Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 8 to 13 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed. LAND ACQUISITION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.21 p.m.”
“I think suggestions had already been made by ASEAN countries that additional supplies of oil should perhaps be made available first to ASEAIN countries. But in regard to his question as to whether we have approached the Malaysian Government, the answer is no. I do not think the Malaysian Government at the moment has any additional supply of oil to spare. If they do have, I shall have no difficulties in making an approach to that Government. Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to tender my apologies to you and your staff for my hasty remarks, and to thank the Member for Katong for putting me right. 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. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 -”
“With regard to the various comments on the need for ensuring that Government, including Parliament, should take the lead in the possibilities of reducing electricity consumption, I should like to say that it is really necessary that the business of Singapore should be carried on and I would suggest that the business of Parliament in the passing of this Bill is as important as any other activity in trying to reduce electricity consumption in Singapore. But I quite agree with the Member for Jalan Kayu and other Members that it is very necessary that we should always be on the look-out for ways and means of saving electricity, for example, raising the temperature of rooms cooled by air-conditioning and thereby saving electricity. I also agree with the Member for Serangoon Gardens that with our very high standards of living and perhaps a very lavish use of energy, which is a manifestation of our standard of living, we can all afford to make some sacrifice against our high standards of living. This is, in fact, the position in many other very developed countries in the world to-day. I also concur with him that in a cohesive and homogeneous society like Singapore's, we ought to be able to co-ordinate our efforts in the campaign to save a lot more energy. I think I have answered all the questions, except perhaps those raised by the Member for Toa Payoh. I think his first question was, "What is our dependence on the Middle East?" I have answered that we are almost wholly dependent on the Middle East oil for our sources of energy. What alternatives have we got? It is possible, of course, that the sources nearer Singapore, i.e. Indonesia and Malaysia, may be available.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am much obliged to all the Members of this House who have spoken and given us their views on the conservation of energy. It is very necessary that all of us pay attention to the requirements for saving which will be necessary in the coming months. I am therefore gratified that this particular Bill has attracted so much comment in the House. With regard to the various questions which have been asked, I think one which has received the attention of more than one Member is the question of whether we can have alternative energy sources and whether we can formulate any plans for replacing petroleum as the energy source. The answer to this is, in the short-term, "No" because - and this is in answer to another question - the main sources of oil supplies come from the Middle East. Of course, there are some supplies from nearer Singapore, but the amount is relatively small, and the proportion of energy which comes from oil is also very high. The amount that we can get from wood or charcoal is really quite negligible. In the long term, of course, it would be to Singapore's advantage to try and diversify our sources of supply and I have no doubt that this is a matter to which we ought to give some attention. The Public Utilities Board and my Ministry have, between them, set up a committee to study the feasibility of setting up a nuclear power station. This will to some extent help us lessen our dependence on oil as the source of energy for Singapore. There is also a possibility that coal may be used and may be fired in the boilers for the power station. But this is a matter which, I have no doubt again, my Ministry and the Public Utilities Board will give some attention in the future.”
“Under the Petroleum Act also, action can be taken against hoarders of petroleum. Under the Public Utilities Board Act, measures to restrict the use of electricity can be imposed. And under the Road Traffic Act, prohibition on the use of public roads can be introduced. But these Acts will have to be amended if, as announced in Government's press statement sometime ago, compulsory measures to conserve energy have to be implemented and heavy deterrent penalties imposed, such as the suspension of driving licences and the cancellation of vehicle licences. It is desirable, therefore, that all the necessary measures to cope with the current situation be provided under a single Bill and not by amendments to several existing Acts. The Bill now before the House will provide the Government with the necessary powers to restrict the supply, distribution and use of petroleum and electricity. It also provides for the imposition of severe penalties for the prohibited use of cars or hoarding of petrol or the excessive use of electricity. Penalties include the cancellation of vehicle and driving licences and the cutting off or reduction of electricity supplies to premises. Offences may be compounded however, in appropriate cases, for a sum not exceeding $500. The public need have no fear that the wide powers under the Bill will be permanent. The sweeping measures contained therein are intended for use only during the current energy crisis, and it is therefore provided that the Act will be in force for an initial period of one year only. It can, however, be extended for one year at a time if the situation so demands. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.00 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." With all the gloomy reading in the news these days, Members of the House will need no reminder of the grave situation facing many countries, including Singapore, as a result of the reduction in oil production by Middle East producing countries. While we must all hope that international discussions in the near future will lead to some alleviation of the situation, it would be foolhardy to assume that there will be any early resumption of the normal supplies of petroleum products to consuming countries. Many countries in the world have already begun to introduce compulsory measures to conserve all energy resources. Singapore itself has started a Save Energy Campaign, with active participation by the public, the Public Utilities Board and all the oil companies. But while there has been a useful drop of electricity consumption since the start of the campaign, we have not achieved anything like the 12 to 13 per cent savings required by the present level of restriction in petroleum supplies. We must expect this level to go progressively higher in the coming months. It is clearly unlikely that voluntary restraints alone would be effective in cutting down the often unnecessary consumption of energy to the desired extent. Compulsory measures must therefore be considered. The Government already has certain powers under various Acts enacted by Parliament. The Control of Essential Supplies Act, 1973, approved by this House at its last sitting, gives powers for control of the domestic sale, including possibly rationing, of essential commodities but it is not entirely suitable for the control of petroleum and electricity consumption.”
“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 make temporary provision for the imposition of restrictions on the supply, distribution and use of petroleum and electricity." Bill read the First time. Second Reading”
“Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BILL (As reported from Select Committee) Order for Third Reading read. 5.00 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In the last Budget address, I mentioned that officers in my Ministry were exploring the possibility of restructuring subheads in the Annual Estimates with the aim of streamlining and rationalising their presentation. Since then, proposals for a new format for the Annual Estimates have been developed by my officials and these proposals have been accepted by the Estimates Committee of Parliament. It is necessary now to amend section 17 of the Financial Procedure Act to enable a new format to be adopted for the Estimates of Expenditure for the next financial year. In the new format all subheads in the Main Estimates will be codified to enable data on expenditure to be processed with the use of computers. The traditional sub-divisions of Personal Emoluments (PE), Other Charges, Annually Recurrent (OCAR) and Other Charges, Special Expenditure (OCSE) will be discarded. Instead, there will be two new categories, namely Expenditure on Manpower (EOM) and Other Operating Expenditure (OOE). This arrangement will enable direct manpower costs to be conveniently grouped. Also, the timescale posts are presented in a summarised way according to their Division of service so that the picture would not be blurred by excessive details. The details, if required, are available in a separate Establishment List. In accordance with the new subsection (3) of section 17 of the Financial Procedure Act, this list will be laid before Parliament each year. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Hon Sui Sen].”
“Sir, the answer is very simple. The prices of essential food supplies are determined not by what is done in Singapore but what happens in the Middle East, or what happens to the weather in Thailand, or in other areas, or in the wheat-growing areas in the United States. The prices which we have to pay are the prices which our importers have to pay in other markets to bring them to Singapore, so that the ability to control prices is certainly not within the hands of either the Singapore Government or even the consumers. Of course, consumers can control prices to a certain degree if they refuse to buy at prices which they regard as too high. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Hon Sui Sen]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.25 p.m.”
“No, Sir. The Bill is not intended to control prices. But there is another Bill which enables us, if necessary, to do that.”
“The public should therefore not allow themselves to be panicked into unnecessary purchases at excessively high prices. The public should treat rumours of shortages with great scepticism. If they allow themselves to be persuaded by such rumours, they run the danger of bringing about the situations they fear and of benefiting those who, in the first place and for their own purposes, started these rumours. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.20 p.m.”
“While Government will do its best to ensure security of supplies, Singapore, not being a producer of rice nor of oil or other primary products, will have to pay competitive prices in the international market place. Otherwise, supplies to Singapore would just dry up. So long as we can pay internationally-competitive prices, adequate, if perhaps because of more restricted production, somewhat reduced supplies will keep flowing and our economy will be able to function, though it may grow more slowly. International events can, however, take a turn swiftly for the worse, entirely outside Singapore's control. Should there be a rapid deterioration, there could be actual shortages of essential commodities for Singapore. In such a situation, it would be the duty of Government to ensure fair and equitable distribution of scarce commodities. This Control of Essential Supplies Bill, 1973, when enacted will give Government powers to control, including possibly by rationing, the domestic sale of essential commodities. These, however, are emergency powers to be exercised only when the situation demands, and then only with the consent of the President. The Minister, on his own, will not be able to invoke such powers. I would also like to stress that this Bill will regulate the distribution only of essential commodities and not of any other article. The Government has no intention and, indeed, it can have no effective means of regulating domestic and international trade. Finally, I would like to repeat that these are emergency powers which will enable Government to act firmly and decisively in a crisis. There are no indications as yet that stocks of any essential commodities will fall to critical levels.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The international economic situation is not encouraging. In recent months, Singapore, like other countries in this region, has suffered from high rice and bread prices because of poor harvests and export bans by producing countries, themselves short of such supplies. The recent Middle East War has led to crude oil shortages. Unless the supply situation improves, crude oil shortages will lead to reduced supplies of petrol, fertilisers, plastics and other petroleum products. There will also be a slowdown in the production of high energy content manufactured goods, such as steel and cement. Shortages of essential commodities will dislocate all economies, including our own very badly. In the current economic uncertainty, all that Singapore can do is to take steps to reduce adverse effects as far as possible. The Government is therefore raising the rice stockpile from 25,000 tons to 90,000 tons, sufficient for at least six months' consumption. While there appears to be some improvement in the world food grains situation, a reasonable rice stockpile still appears to be a prudent precaution. Six months' stocks will tide Singapore over should harvests fail and shortages occur again. Similarly, the Government and the oil industry are taking steps to safeguard oil stocks to meet Singapore's own direct needs and also to supply, with bunker fuel and aviation gas, ships and international airlines calling regularly at Singapore. However, crude oil supplies to our refineries have been reduced and it will be necessary for all Singapore households, industries and business firms to exercise the greatest economy in the use of oil and electricity.”
“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 provide for the control and rationing of essential supplies and to repeal the Food Control Act (Chapter 246 of the Revised Edition) and the Control of Petroleum Fuel and Lubricants Act (Chapter 242 of the Revised Edition)". Bill read the First time. Second Reading”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Sembawang's suggestion has been submitted to the Currency Board for consideration along with other similar suggestions which I have also received. However, I ought to say that there are problems of manpower and security involved in selling coins elsewhere than at the Currency Board. The difficulty about commemorative and other coins not intended for large day-to-day currency circulation is, as with the issue of stamps, to judge exactly what number would be appropriate for each issue. The number must not be too large if their value for collectors is not to be debased. On the other hand, if the number is too limited, we have the problem of long queues and the waste of time referred to by the Member for Sembawang. Perhaps the Board has misjudged the constantly growing number of numismatists and their great enthusiasm for our cleanly struck coins with their interesting designs. If so, I will suggest to them that the number of coins can be somewhat increased without detriment to their interest for collectors. The Member for Sembawang and other coin enthusiasts can be certain, however, that a policy of limited issue will be maintained to ensure that any slight queueing or time spent will still have been worthwhile. REPORT OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO FIRE AT ROBINSON DEPARTMENTAL STORE (Statement by the Minister for Social Affairs) 2.35 p.m.”
“Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Hon Sui Sen]. Adjourned accordingly at Thirty-one minutes past Four o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed.”
“All this does not disguise the fact that the creation of a separate Stock Exchange in Singapore has created teething problems for the Stock Exchange Committee. Many of the initial difficulties brought about by the sudden transition to a separate Stock Exchange have, however, I am glad to say, been successfully overcome. The Committee has faced up to its problems in an energetic and business-like way which augurs well for the future of the new Stock Exchange. The Committee has brought out New Rules for the Exchange which are a great improvement on the old Rules. These Rules take into account the provisions of the principal Act which affect the Exchange and its members. The Committee has also published in booklet form its policy with regard to corporate disclosure. Since this policy is very much concerned with the maintenance of a sound and healthy market and with fair treatment to investors, the Government expects all listed companies to comply with the new policy. They must also pay strict regard to the new Listing Requirements that have been prepared by the Exchange and sign without delay the necessary undertaking to be bound thereby. In the absence, therefore, of adverse factors that cannot at present be anticipated, we can, I venture to say, look forward in the years ahead to increasing growth of this Exchange. In the context of Singapore's development as a financial centre, it would not, I think, be over-sanguine to predict that the Stock Exchange will assume much greater importance than hitherto, both from a local and international point of view. 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].”
“As for dealers in securities, there are 17 member-companies and one member-firm consisting in the aggregate of 63 stockbrokers - the member-firm referred to will in the next twelve months be converting itself into a member-company. Additionally, there are 277 dealers' representatives (formerly described as dealers and remisiers). Both these factors, that is to say, the number of companies quoted on the Stock Exchange and the number of brokers operating are relevant in relation to the viability of a stock market as, of course, are the number of investors and share traders who are prepared to risk their monies at any particular time. From the Singapore Government's point of view, it would welcome the continuance of the present position whereby Malaysia registered companies continue to be quoted on the Stock Exchange of Singapore. But even if it should come to pass that some of these companies, for one reason or another, cease to be quoted here there are good grounds for believing that the Singapore Stock market would be a viable one. In this connection, I should mention that ii is the policy of the Government and of the Stock Exchange to encourage the listing of new companies that come up to the standards for listing laid down by the Stock Exchange and the Securities Industry Council. This policy will extend not only to local companies but also to companies of international standing that are registered outside Singapore that wish to have a listing on our Stock Exchange. Conversely, subject to guidelines laid down by the Securities Industry Council, Singapore companies will not be discouraged from seeking listings on foreign exchanges.”
“Members of the Stock Exchange of Singapore will henceforth deal with members of the Stock Exchange of Malaysia in the same way as they deal with members of any other foreign stock exchange, whether they are in London, Hongkong or elsewhere. The dissolution of the joint Stock Exchange has not, up to the present time, materially affected the total number of companies quoted on the new Singapore Stock Exchange. From this total the Singapore registered companies number 76 and the Malaysian companies number 154. The balance is made up of 45 companies registered overseas, mainly in the United Kingdom. It may he of interest to Members to learn that during 1972 (and the previous years of 1970 and 1971 were not all that different), of the total turnover of units on the former joint Stock Exchange something like 60 per cent to 70 per cent of this total turnover was attributable to Singapore share dealing transactions, though I should stress that it is difficult for technical reasons to be precise as to the exact contribution to total turnover made by Singapore and Malaysia. It is, however, true to say that the greater part of the total turnover of units is over the last few years attributable to dealings in Singapore. Again, the total paid-up capital of the Singapore registered companies in 1972 was $1,275 million compared with Malaysian companies which was $1,460 million, and total market capitalisation for Singapore quoted companies is approximately 50 per cent higher than that of Malaysian quoted companies. The turnover value of shares of Singapore quoted companies in 1972 was approximately three times higher than in Malaysia.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Members are aware that our Securities Industry Act was drafted on the basis that a common Stock Exchange between Singapore and Malaysia would continue to exist. Certain provisions of this Act, accordingly, gave legislative recognition to the existence of the joint Malaysia and Singapore Stock Exchange. The decision of the Malaysian Government to discontinue the joint Stock Exchange and to operate its own stock exchange independently has, therefore, radically altered the existing legislative position. One of the immediate consequences of this decision has been that Singapore was obliged to create its own separate Stock Exchange and, as we all now know, this new Stock Exchange is called the Stock Exchange of Singapore Ltd. The former joint Stock Exchange of Malaysia and Singapore is in the process of being dissolved and no longer operates a stock market in Singapore. The only stock market in existence in Singapore is the stock market of the Stock Exchange of Singapore Ltd. This Stock Exchange has been approved by me under section 6 of the principal Act. With all these developments, it will be readily appreciated by Members that amendments will need to be made to the principal Act to bring the Act into line with the new factual situation. The Explanatory Statement explains the nature of the amendments that arc proposed. I need not elaborate upon them except to say that with the repeal of section 98 of the Act legislative recognition will no longer be given to the former joint Stock Exchange of Malaysia and Singapore. The new Stock Exchange of Singapore Ltd, will now operate independently with its own Rules, Bye-laws and Listing Requirements.”
“Members will see from the Explanatory Statement what the effect of the amendments would be to Division I of Part XI. I need not enlarge upon this explanation. The purpose of all the amendments proposed is to relax the rigour of some of the existing restrictions with regard to the powers of investment companies to borrow, to invest in other companies and to underwrite securities, and to relieve them of certain obligations with regard to the articles and prospectuses and particulars to be attached to balance sheets. Only one investment company has been proclaimed as such up to the present time but, with the development of Singapore as a financial and investment centre, more applications will be received from companies to be proclaimed under subsection (2) of section 319. 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. SECURITIES INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.16 p.m.”
“The nominee system does have certain advantages, namely, banks sometimes prefer to have complete control over shares lodged with them as security and therefore register the shares in their names; investment managers can buy large blocks of shares in nominee names rather than many small blocks in many names. Again, if large investors are making substantial investments in a particular company, they might not wish it to be generally known since this could have an exaggerated effect on the market price of the company concerned; certain investors do not want to be troubled personally with offer documents collecting dividends and so on, and leave these things to professional advisers acting in nominee names. But these have to be weighed against the disadvantage that nominee holdings conceal the buildup of very substantial holdings in a company and are sometimes used to conceal dishonest insider dealings. While it is not intended at the present time to abolish nominee holdings, it is the intention that greater use will in future be made of section 208 to investigate these holdings. Nevertheless, the whole subject of nominee holdings will be reviewed at a suitable time by the Securities Industry Council. The amendments proposed in clauses 16 and 17, which amend sections 217 and 218 respectively of the Companies Act, enable the Minister to petition the court in certain circumstances for the compulsory winding up of companies that carry on the business of multi-level marketing or pyramid selling. The proposed amendments are, in fact, related to the Bill which has been considered by Members and which is designed to ban pyramid selling in Singapore. The final significant feature of this Bill is concerned with investment companies and is dealt with in clause 18.”
“If the Minister decides to take action under this provision, it is envisaged that he would direct that provisions similar to the London City Code on Take-overs and Mergers would be binding on all parties to take-over and merger transactions with, of course, such modification as may be necessary to adopt this Code to local circumstances. It is also envisaged that such a Singapore Code would be administered and enforced by the Securities Industry Council, the membership of which would be enlarged to include a number of merchant bankers experienced in take-overs and mergers. In actual practice, it is thought that the Securities Industry Council would create a sub-committee to handle the take-overs and mergers aspect of the Securities Industry Council and to report its decision to the Securities Industry Council for consideration and approval. The other amendment to section 179 will ensure that the body, panel or committee (in fact, the Securities Industry Council) that will be dealing with takeovers and mergers will receive copies of all the notices and statements referred to in that section. Subsection (10) at present provides that such notices and statements should be sent only to the Registrar or a Stock Exchange. Members will also note the amendment made to the Tenth Schedule which also concerns take-overs and mergers (clause 21). The object of the amendments to section 208 (clause 15) is principally to confer upon a committee of a stock exchange, with the approval of the Minister, to make its own enquiries into nominee holdings.”
“I should add, at this point, that if this amendment is passed and a body, panel or committee is constituted to administer a non-statutory Code, it is envisaged that, unlike the existing London City Code, the powers conferred upon such administering authority would be much greater than is conferred upon its London counterpart. These powers would be conferred under the Securities Industry Act and in the provisions of this Bill. The administering authority would still, as in London, however, have consultative and supervisory functions. It is also important to mention that this administering authority would work very closely with the Quotation Section of the Stock Exchange which would retain many of its existing functions with regard to companies concerned in take-overs and mergers. The Quotation Section would, for example, satisfy itself that the offer documents meet the requirements of the Code. It will, of course, be necessary for the Stock Exchange Rules to be considerably expanded in regard to its takeover and merger rules, and the Committee of the Stock Exchange are looking into this matter. In the result, section 179 has been amended to enable the Minister, in subsection (11) thereof, for the more effective administration, supervision and control of take-overs and mergers, to direct by notice if he considers it necessary in the public interest or for the protection of investors that all parties in a take-over and merger transaction shall, in addition to compliance with the Tenth Schedule, be bound to abide by such general principles and rules of a non-statutory nature as he may determine; these general principles and rules would be administered by such body, panel or committee as the Minister may specify in the notice.”
“Although it would not be difficult to expand the existing statutory provisions to ensure greater disclosure and equality of treatment of shareholders and so on, the statutory provisions would still be unsatisfactory for, by their very rigidity, they militate against the prompt and expeditious settlement of take-over problems and can never be detailed enough to cover the wide diversity of take-over techniques, bid tactics, patterns of share ownership and control, the consideration offered, and so on, that may occur from time to time. The inevitable delay in seeking amendments to statutory provisions by way of an amending Bill with the difficulties that this may cause to a pending takeover should also be borne in mind. A more practical consideration is that, owing to the serious shortage of qualified and trained staff possessing the appropriate expertise in the Registry of Companies, it is not at the present time possible for this department effectively to administer and supervise take-overs under a purely statutory scheme. It would be some considerable time before persons of the right calibre become available and, even then, it is doubtful if they could have the same amount of expertise in matters connected with the securities industry that one would expect to find and utilize in the private sector. For these brief reasons, it is considered that a supplemental non-statutory Code is likely to be a more efficient and expeditious method of administering and controlling take-overs and mergers than non-statutory provisions.”
“I shall reserve for another occasion a statement on the nature of the Code and the principal functions of any body, panel or committee, and the constitution of membership thereof that may be set up to administer the Code. On this occasion I shall confine myself to giving brief reasons, based on advice tendered to me by the Securities Industry Council, why the non-statutory Code should be adopted in Singapore in addition to the statutory provisions dealing with take-overs and mergers. The great advantage of a non-statutory Code is its flexibility, a very necessary attribute when one is laying down in effect what amounts to business standards of behaviour in take-over and merger situations rather than the laying down of strict legal rules. Such a Code can be amended easily to deal with new situations that might arise or to revise existing concepts that appear in the Code. Again, the creation of a body, committee or panel, to supervise and administer take-overs and mergers that consists of persons who are conversant with the workings of the securities market, ensures that the experience and expertise of those persons can be utilised in and brought to bear upon this complex field of business. But more than anything else there is the consideration that our existing statutory provisions, standing by themselves, are inadequate to deal with the many problems likely to arise in take-over and merger situations.”
“In clause 13 the intention is, as mentioned in the Explanatory Statement, to spell out with greater particularity what are the powers and duties of auditors of companies in regard to reports or accounts and consolidated accounts. His duties are now put in a more positive form; for example, he must now form an opinion as to whether he has obtained all the information and explanations that he required rather than, as in the existing provision, state in his report that he has not obtained all the information and explanations required. Furthermore, if he is satisfied that there has been a breach or non-observance of any provision of the Act, and the matter has not been or will not be adequately dealt with in his report on the accounts or the consolidated accounts or by bringing this matter to the attention of the directors, he must forthwith report the matter in writing to the Registrar. So that an auditor may fearlessly and conscientiously carry out his duties as auditor, by a new section 174A, he is not, in the absence of malice, liable in any action for defamation. Neither shall any other person be liable who, without notice, publishes a document prepared by an auditor in the course of his duties and required to be lodged with the Registrar. The next significant feature of the Bill appears in clause 14 which amends section 179 dealing with take-overs and mergers. In July of 1971, Members might recall that I indicated in a statement in Parliament that a study would be made of the London City Panel and Code on Take-overs and Mergers to ascertain if a similar non-statutory scheme would be suitable and appropriate for introduction into Singapore, either as an alternative or supplemental means of controlling take-overs and mergers.”
“Despite these and other purely drafting problems, the Government is determined to provide and enforce a legislative framework whereby insider traders can be brought to book for it is now generally agreed that this dishonest form of trading is just as reprehensible as other forms of dishonest trading which are punishable under Part X of the Securities Industry Act. With regard to the provisions in the keeping of a register of directors' share-holdings and the general duty of directors to make disclosure of their holdings that are at present provided for in section 134 of the Act, these provisions have been substantially redrafted. The effect of the new section is to oblige a director to make disclosure to the company not only of the details of his shareholdings but also debentures and participatory interests, rights, options and contracts to which he is a party, and for the company to enter into its registers, amongst other things, the price and the date of the transaction. These details must be entered by the company in its register within three days of receiving notice from a director. The Registrar has the right to require the company to submit to him a copy of the register or any part of it. The remaining provisions are much the same as in the existing section except that the penalty for default has been considerably increased. The new section 135 is related to section 134 and obliges directors to comply with the latter section and also to advise of any change in the particulars of his holdings within 24 hours of the change. A company, however, has a period of seven days within which to advise other directors of the company of events occurring under subsection (1). Certain defences to a prosecution under this section are made available.”
“A prosecution for insider trading could he launched under that section against any person who misuses confidential information. However, it is not intended that persons who have acquired information in a perfectly proper and legitimate manner and who are not insiders should be penalized under either of these offence-creating sections. But it is the intention that if an insider deliberately benefits an outsider through the misuse of his confidential information, he will be liable under the provisions as if he had received the outsider's benefit. There are additional problems of definition in the section which are extremely difficult to cover with any degree of precision. For example, an area of uncertainty inevitably arises by the use of the words "affect materially the price of the subject matter of the dealing on a stock exchange" in relation to the non-disclosure of the confidential information. Such problems will necessarily have to be left to a court to decide, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. Again, the section is limited to dealings in securities with an insider on a stock exchange and does not extend to dealings in securities that take place outside a stock exchange. Experience in the application of this provision will tell whether further amendments to this provision are going to be necessary. Since the proposed new section extends to employees of a company, it is doubtful if a company will be able to tell its staff that the forthcoming company results are going to be good; again where staff purchase options in shares, the time when these options are exercised could create difficulties, though the Minister could in this latter respect exempt such dealings in regulations made under subsection (7) of new section 132A.”
“Furthermore, the Minister has power under subsection (7), for the protection of investors, to restrict dealings in the securities of a corporation by an officer, agent or employee of that corporation during certain periods of a financial year of a corporation when such persons are, or are likely to be, in possession of what may be called privileged price-sensitive information regarding a company's securities. The Minister under this section may also direct a committee of a stock exchange or the committee may of its own motion investigate any dealings in securities and for this purpose may summon persons to give evidence. This power taken together with the powers that may be delegated by the Minister under section 208 (by clause 15) will enable a committee of a stock exchange to get behind nominee holdings, which is one of the methods used by insiders to acquire large and secret holdings in a company that is likely to be made the target of a take-over bid. Though we have attempted to make insider trading a specific criminal offence, it would be rash to claim that the section covers all forms of insider trading or that a successful prosecution can be launched in every case where insider trading is suspected. The section does not, for example, deal with a situation where information is acquired by third persons by improper or dishonest means, such as the bugging of company discussions. But it is not to be thought that such persons can use information acquired in this way with impunity. They could still be caught in the catch-all provision (section 87) of the Securities Industry Act which is drafted in the widest possible terms to deal with all forms of fraud or deceit used in the purchase or sale of securities.”
“The concepts involve not only the dishonest form of share trading known as insider trading but also the duty of directors of a company to make a general disclosure of their shareholdings so that the investing public are aware of what the managers of a company are doing with their shares in the company. With regard to insider trading -which may loosely be said to be the use of confidential information before a rise or even a fall in price of a share or stock - the existing section 132A has been considerably expanded in clause 9 to cover not only the dishonest use of confidential information by officers of a company (including directors) for their own financial advantage or that of other persons but also of agents of a company (such as bankers, auditors, solicitors or stockbrokers) and employees similarly misuse such confidential information for their own financial advantage or that of other persons. Equally significant, this concept that appears in subsection (1) of section 132A extends to apply to dishonest use of confidential information by such persons to gain advantage for themselves or other persons where there is a possibility of a take-over offer being made to another corporation, or where there is possibility of a substantial commercial transaction being entered into with another corporation by dealing in the securities of that other corporation on a stock exchange.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill which seeks to amend the Companies Act may, in certain of its provisions, be regarded as an extension of the philosophy that is basic to the Securities Industry Act. That is to say, that in great measure this Bill is concerned with matters involving the protection of investors. Provision has also been made in clause 4, which amends section 39, for the Registrar to exempt companies from compliance with any requirements of the Act relating to the form and content of a prospectus if, in his opinion, compliance would be unduly burdensome. This amendment is intended to make it easier for foreign companies with innumerable subsidiaries to seek listing on the Singapore Stock Exchange. The provisions that appear in clauses 9, 10, 11 and 15 are in one way or another concerned with dealing in securities by officers, agents and employees of a company, with disclosure of shareholdings held by directors or with the extension of powers to ascertain the beneficial ownership of securities where, for example, such securities are held in nominee names. They are, in short, designed to ensure that persons, by reason of their position in a company, do not take advantage of confidential knowledge of the affairs of a company by buying or selling the shares of their companies for their own profit or for other persons' profit and to the disadvantage of shareholders or investors generally, and to ensure that these persons make full disclosure of their shareholdings.”
“The definition of a "pyramid selling scheme or arrangement" in section 2 is not intended accordingly to interfere with these other schemes or arrangements to which I have referred. The definition adopted will ensure that recruitment of participants in pyramid selling schemes on the chain-letter principle will be prevented for it would be impossible to take or make payments for rights in such a scheme or arrangement. The Explanatory Statement to the Bill summarises the objects and reasons of the proposed legislation, and I need not elaborate upon them further except to draw attention to clause 10 which makes it clear that sales to consumers of commodities received by the seller under a pyramid selling scheme, the promotion of which becomes unlawful under the Bill, are not declared to be unlawful if the commodities were received by the seller at any time before the Act comes into operation. The purpose of this provision is to confer a limited measure of protection upon existing franchise holders who have already participated in an unlawful scheme. 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) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.49 p.m.”
“It is recognised that there are systems of franchising (including perhaps sub-franchising) and direct selling which are not necessarily objectionable and which should be allowed to develop. From a legislative and drafting aspect, it is by no means easy to distinguish clearly pyramid selling schemes from those other systems which sometimes have a pyramid element in them. The question of definition, therefore, assumes primary importance in this Bill. The definition of a pyramid selling scheme or arrangement should be one that is easily understood and capable of effective application and be so drafted as to pinpoint the objectionable elements earlier mentioned. It should not, however, be so widely drafted as to prevent development of perfectly lawful schemes and arrangements. Provision has accordingly been inserted in clause 11 of the Bill for the Minister by regulations to spell out the elements of a scheme or arrangement that may he lawfully operated in Singapore. Although these elements have not as yet been comprehensively worked out by the Attorney-General, it is envisaged that schemes of franchise trading where the franchise holder does not recruit others and sells goods or provides a service from one level and from a retail establishment will not be objectionable. Again, schemes of direct selling where the company's main source of income is from the sale of goods and services rather than from payments for recruiting others and where the company subscribes to a code of conduct and where the franchise holders are agents of the company (not independent contractors) and work in a defined geographic area, etc., will not be objectionable.”
“But having said that, I should add that it would be extremely difficult to prove dishonesty or fraud in relation to these pyramid selling schemes under the existing general principles of our criminal and civil law. New provisions are, therefore, essential to deal specifically with this practice. The present Bill accordingly makes it unlawful for any person to promote or participate in a multi-level marketing scheme or arrangement or to hold out that he is promoting or participating in such a scheme or arrangement. No business that is designed to promote such a scheme or arrangement will be allowed to be registered and no company, whether foreign or local, that proposes to promote such a scheme or arrangement will be registered or incorporated in Singapore. Every existing business or company that promotes a pyramid selling scheme must, upon the coming into operation of this Act, cease to do so. Existing companies that promote such a scheme or arrangement must within sixty days of the coming into operation of this Act take steps to wind themselves up voluntarily or petition the court to wind up the companies concerned. If they fail to take or complete the necessary steps to get themselves wound up, the Minister has power to petition the court to wind them up compulsorily. It is confidently expected that these proposed measures, once they are translated into law, will be effective to eliminate pyramid selling in Singapore. However, it should be pointed out that it is not the intention of this Bill to outlaw schemes or arrangements which do not contain the objectionable elements that I have referred to.”
“Recruits are, furthermore, put under heavy pressure by the selling or advertising tactics adopted by the promoters to sign a contract and little or no opportunity given to them to rescind if, on further reflection, they should wish to do so. Since the promoters rarely have a big stake in the scheme, the major part of the risks are taken by franchise holders at different levels in the scheme. The chief attraction of the scheme for these companies, apart from this, is that capital is made available cheaply and quickly and the franchise holders are left with the burden of holding and disposing of the stocks. The result has been that countless franchise holders in the countries I have mentioned have over the years suffered considerable financial loss and hardship by being lured into these "get-rich-quick" schemes. The Government is determined that this sort of situation should not be allowed to develop in Singapore. Thus, the decision to legislate to outlaw the practice before it becomes widespread and before members of the public here are induced to part with their savings on a large scale. The Government, after a close study of the operations of these pyramid selling schemes in Singapore and elsewhere, has come to the conclusion that the undesirable features of pyramid selling are so clearly contrary to the public interest that the objective should be to eliminate them rather than attempt to control them. We have no doubt in our minds that the objectionable features of a pyramid selling scheme to which I have referred are tainted with dishonesty and are potentially fraudulent in intent.”
“Those at the lowest level of the pyramid form the bulk of the sales force: they are usually recruited to sell the products at the lowest rate of commission to the public. The company running the scheme has two main sources of income: the sale of its goods or services to the franchise holders, and a proportion of the payments made by new participants or by existing participants when they buy their way into a higher level. The franchise holder suffers a number of disadvantages under these pyramid selling schemes, including the following. He does not usually have exclusive rights to sell in a defined territory. Goods and services are difficult to sell because the rewards for recruiting far exceed those to be earned from selling and because the discount structure of pyramid selling makes the goods expensive by the time they reach the customer. Furthermore the goods are rarely advertised. Since the higher level franchise holder can seldom recoup the investment by selling goods, he is often driven to terminate the contract and seek repayment from the company or to concentrate his efforts on earning a return from recruiting others. The conditions of the contract are such that it is impossible on termination to recover any part of the investment from the company except, perhaps, repayment for unsold goods. High pressure salesmanship by the pyramid selling companies' representatives gloss over or conceal these inherent disadvantages but at the same time stress the high rewards (which are mostly illusory) available to a franchise holder. Little or no information is provided about the company's assets, turnover, capacity to supply goods, demand for products, or the number of franchise holders recruited or to be recruited.”
“Taken together, these two factors lead to expansion of such schemes on the chain-letter principle. This may be better understood if I explain how these schemes work. In a typical pyramid scheme for the sale of goods, a company sells and the participants buy a right to sell its goods. Legally the participants are usually regarded as independent contractors who buy for resale the goods from the company or from other participants at a discount on the price to the consumer. The participants are often described as franchise holders. The original franchise holders, as well as selling goods themselves to the public, will recruit further participants to whom they will sell the goods for resale to the public and, in some cases, to yet another level of participants. In this way, a hierarchy is built up, each receiving a discount from the consumer's price on the goods he buys, the size of the discount depending on his position in the hierarchy. Hence, the terms "pyramid selling" and "multi-level marketing". At all but the lowest level in the structure, the franchise holders receive a payment for recruiting new participants. This leads to expansion on the chain-letter principle. A new franchise holder pays immediately a sum of money; the amount of the payment being determined by the level at which he wishes to join the scheme. For this outlay the franchise holder usually receives some goods or credit for goods and some training in addition to his other rights under the schemes. Thus, at the higher levels the franchise holder can earn money in two ways; first, by profit on sales he makes himself and often by a commission on sales by those on his part of the pyramid; secondly, from payments for recruiting new participants (from the new recruits).”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to prohibit in Singapore the trading practice known as pyramid selling or, as it is sometimes more euphemistically described, multi-level marketing. Until the arrival on the Singapore scene of an international company known as Holiday Magic, this practice was comparatively unknown in Singapore, though the practice is widespread and has expanded enormously in recent years in certain western countries such as the United States of America, Canada, South Africa, Australia and the United Kingdom. Some of these countries have taken steps to ban pyramid selling; others have attempted to control or regulate it, but with varying degrees of success. The Government has already clearly indicated its attitude to the practice of pyramid selling by taking action in the High Court in April this year to wind up, on grounds of public interest, the company known as Holiday Magic which carried on pyramid selling of cosmetics in Singapore. But petitioning the High Court for a winding up order of a company is a lengthy and time-consuming procedure. In the result it is a poor substitute to the expression of condemnation that is inherent in an Act of Parliament that outlaws in plain terms this trading practice and makes it a criminal offence for any person to promote or participate in such practice. The essential features of pyramid selling are by now well known to Members. In general terms, it may be described as a scheme or arrangement relating to the sale of goods or provision of services under which the participants pay for their rights under the scheme and receive a reward for recruiting new participants.”
“PENAL CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Penal Code (Chapter 103 of the Revised Edition)", 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. CORROSIVE AND EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES AND OFFENSIVE WEAPONS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Chapter 97 of the Revised Edition)", 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. FINANCIAL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Financial Procedure Act (Chapter 68 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Finance (Mr Hon Sui Sen); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. MENTAL DISORDERS AND TREATMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.00 p.m.”
“PROHIBITION ON SMOKING IN CERTAIN PLACES (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Prohibition on Smoking in Certain Places Act (Chapter 165 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Communications (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Chapter 15 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr E. W. Barker; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. BUILDING CONTROL BILL "to amend and consolidate the law in respect of building control and for matters connected therewith and to repeal certain provisions of the Local Government Integration Act (Chapter 210 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr E. W. Barker; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Immigration Act (Chapter 81 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Health and Home Affairs (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. ARMS OFFENCES BILL "to consolidate and amend the law relating to the unlawful possession of arms and ammunition and the carrying and using of arms, and to repeal the Arms Offences Act (Chapter 94) and the Firearms and Ammunition (Unlawful Possession) Act (Chapter 100 of the Revised Edition)", 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.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am informed by the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) that it will be building 1,136 units of flats, instead of 1,100 units as originally planned, on a 17-acre site at Sembawang Road in two phases. 660 units consisting of 440 units of 3-room flats and 220 units of 4-room flats costing altogether $5.5 million are now being constructed. These flats are expected to be ready for occupation by the end of this year. In Phase II, the intention is that 476 units comprising 336 units of 3-room flats, 60 units of 4-room flats and 80 units of 5-room flats costing $5.3 million will be built. Construction will start towards the end of this year and the flats are expected to be completed by the latter half of 1975. Apart from these, the JTC has no plans at present to build more low-cost flats in the Sembawang Constituency. I understand that the Housing and Development Board also has no proposals at present to build public housing in this Constituency. However, the Board will be building flats in the Woodlands New Town adjoining the Sembawang Constituency. Citizens who wish to live in the northern part of Singapore can apply for these flats. BILLS INTRODUCED 2.53 p.m. PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 50 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“The opportunity is also taken to include five other statutory bodies, namely, the Timber Export Industry Board, the Land Surveyors Board, the Professional Engineers Board, the Commercial and Industrial Security Corporation and the Industrial Training Board, which have no income tax exemption provisions in their Statutes but which in accordance with the current policy should enjoy equal treatment with the other statutory bodies. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, pursuant to sub section (1) of section 106 of the Income Tax Act (Chapter 141), resolves that the First Schedule to the said Act be varied by inserting immediately after item 35 of paragraph A thereof the following statutory authorities, with effect from the date of the coming into operation of the Statutes of the Republic of Singapore (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Act, 1973:- 36. Monetary Authority of Singapore (Cap. 195). 37. Timber Export industry Board (Cap. 203). 38. Jurong Town Corporation (Cap. 209). 39. Land Surveyors Board (Cap. 216). 40. Professional Engineers Board (Cap. 225). 41. Preservation of Monuments Board (Cap. 315). 42. Science Centre Board (Cap. 317). 43. National Statistical Commission (No. 27 of 1971). 44. Telecommunication Authority of Singapore (No. 2 of 1972). 45. National Productivity Board (No. 11 of 1972). 46. Commercial and industrial Security Corporation (No. 18 of 1972). 47. National Maritime Board (No. 21 of 1972). 48. Sentosa Development Corporation (No. 22 of 1972). 49. Industrial Training Board (No. 36 of 1972). ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed."-[Mr Hon Sui Sen]. Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes past Five o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. * The motion reads as follows: `That this Parliament, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 106 of the Income Tax Act (Chapter 141), resolves that the First Schedule to the said Act be varied by inserting immediately after item 35 of paragraph A thereof the following statutory authorities, with effect from the date of the coming into operation of the Statutes of the Republic of Singapore (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Act, 1973: - 36. Monetary Authority of Singapore (Cap.195). 37. Timber Export Industry (Cap.203). 38. Jurong Town Corporation (Cap.209). 39. Land Surveyors Board (Cap.216). 40. Professional Engineers Board (Cap.225). 41. Preservation of Monuments Board (Cap.315). 42. Science Centre Board (Cap.317). 43. National Statistical (No. 27 of 1971). 44. Telecommunication Authority of Singapore (No. 2 of 1972). 45. National Productivity Board (No. 11 of 1972). 46. Commercial and Industrial Security Corporation (No. 18 of 1972). 47. National Maritime Board (No. 21 of 1972). 48. Sentosa Development Corporation (Cap.22 of 1972). 49. Industrial Training Board (Cap.36 of 1972). Sir, in recent years a number of statutory bodies have included in their Statutes provisions to exempt them from income tax. The Statutes of the Republic of Singapore (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Bill, 1973, just passed, has removed such provisions from the various Statutes of statutory bodies. The intention of my resolution is that these statutory bodies affected will continue to be exempted from income tax, hut the exemption will now be centralised under the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to repeal the two provisions in the Economic Development Board Act which confer powers on the Board to promote standardisation and to operate a Certification Marking Scheme, as these powers will now be transferred to the Singapore Institute of Standards and Industrial Research, which is to be constituted as a statutory body. 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. INCOME TAX ACT (FIRST SCHEDULE) 5.09 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the Member for Katong's general welcome to the Bill and his well-deserved praise for SISIR and its activities. I also welcome his suggestions, which I do not regard as criticisms, although he may term them as such. I will look into the matters which he has commented upon. However, it may well be that the question of shoddy and cheap imports is not so much a matter for SISIR as for some other body or some law governing imports and exports. But, nevertheless, I think his suggestions certainly have merit and deserve consideration. As for his suggestion to consult SISIR when dealing with environmental problems, I believe that SISIR is already doing considerable work in this regard, and that the Singapore Manufacturers' Association has been accustomed to seeking its advice. In regard to highly specialised problems - this may be something on which, like other general practitioners, SISIR may have to call upon specialist services elsewhere. But, in the first instance, I think the services which SISIR can render would be most helpful to our industries. 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. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 5.06 p.m.”
“The Institute will also play a crucial role in upgrading local skills and technology through its technical and engineering services and through its industrial research consultancy services. With autonomy, the Institute will be given a proper legal standing which will greatly facilitate the execution of contractual agreements with clients in the private sector. Ultimately the Institute should form part of the infrastructure provided by Government to stimulate economic and industrial growth and to enable us to take off to the next stage of our industrial development. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.57 p.m.”