Tang See Chim
Singapore
“In this Bill, Sir, 4 1/2 pages of the Bill out of 20 1/2 pages are devoted to the definition of terms used in the Bill and almost every other clause defines one term or another. Finally, Sir, what about the agent of the corrupt person, the go-between, the abettor of the crime?”
“Sir, maybe it was a misplaced metaphor. Maybe I should say a skunk smells just as evil by any other name. This is exactly the position. There is no point your telling us that conditions have now returned to normal when manufacturers are asked to pay a higher rental. They have to compete.”
“Sir, the Minister said that he has not increased rent but he just revalued the value of the land. This is exactly the same as increasing rent. I mean you call a rose a rose. You increase the rent whether you call it the rent or call it the base value of the property. To the manufacturer, it is still the same.”
“The Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that the rent demanded by the JTC is comparable to that for private premises outside. But I think the JTC has almost a monopoly on industrial property. I just do not see how the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could make such a comparison.”
“Sir, the difference is that once they get the entry visa, they will be allowed permanent residence in the United Kingdom. Whereas here, we may allow them to enter for two weeks and after that we will turf them out. Also, may I just take up this further point.”
“Sir, I just want to take up with the Minister on the regulations he read out from the booklet. Indeed, if all those conditions are met, the person will be given an entry clearance and then he will be able to enter the United Kingdom.”
The complete record
Every one of 698 lines we hold for Tang See Chim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 14.
“For the purpose of continuity, provision is now made to require Council members to serve for a term of two years, with half retiring each year. With the enlargement of the number of elected Council members, the quorum for Council meetings should accordingly be increased from the existing seven to the proposed 12 members. Now that the Department of Accountancy has been transferred from the Singapore Polytechnic to the University of Singapore, the representative of the Singapore Polytechnic on the Council should, therefore, be replaced by a representative of the University of Singapore. 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 Tang See Chim]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ECONOMIC EXPANSION INCENTIVES (RELIEF FROM INCOME TAX) (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.15 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir,I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Singapore Society of Accountants Ordinance was passed in 1963 to register and regulate the conduct of all accountants and to maintain professional and ethical standards in the profession. This Ordinance gave, for the first time, recognition to locally-trained accountants and accorded them professional status. The Society had a membership of 226 when it was first constituted. By the end of 1969, the membership increased to 708. Based on the experience in operating under the Ordinance over the last six years, the Society had made recommendations for amendments to the Ordinance, which recommendations have been accepted by the Government. In brief, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Ordinance to provide for the following: (a) an increase in the number of elected Council members from eight to 16; (b) Council members to serve for a term of two years, with half the number retiring each year; (c) an increase in the number to form a quorum for Council meetings from seven to 12 members; (d) to enable the Accountant-General to nominate an alternate to attend Council meetings; (e) to replace the representative of the Singapore Polytechnic on the Council by a representative of the University of Singapore. The Council, as at present constituted, consists of eight elected members (four from Public Accountants and four from Registered Accountants) and three statutory councillors. The proposed amendment is to increase the number of elected members from eight to 16 in order to give better representation, as the membership of the Society has grown more than three times since 1963. Hitherto, Council members retire at the end of one year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In the past, the appointment of the Director of Audit was provided for in section 101 (1) of the Singapore Constitution Order-in-Council, 1958. This Order-in-Council was repealed and replaced by the Singapore Constitution, 1963, when Singapore became part of the Federation of Malaysia. No provision in the Constitution, however, was made for the appointment of the Director of Audit, because the Audit function was then a Federal responsibility. After separation, a similar provision as that in section 101 (1) of the 1958 Order-in-Council should have been enshrined ill the Constitution, but this was overlooked. The Audit Act, 1966, has provisions relating to the emoluments and removal from office of the Director of Audit, but not for appointment. This Bill now seeks to regularise the position by making specific provision in the Audit Act for the appointment of the Auditor-General by the President in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. Opportunity has also been taken to change the designation of the Director of Audit to Auditor-General to keep in line with the usage in independent Commonwealth countries. 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 Tang See Chim]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. SINGAPORE SOCIETY OF ACCOUNTANTS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.09 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions." Question put, and agreed to. Revolutions accordingly agreed to. SCIENCE CENTRE BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.45 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to certain resolutions. Resolutions reported - "That the sum of $712,820 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1970, to 31st March, 1971, contained in Paper Cmd. 19 of 1970." "That the sum of $930,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1970, to 31st March, 1971, contained in Paper Cmd. 20 of 1970."”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to draw the attention of Members to a printing error in page one of the Second Supplementary Estimates wherein lines 15 and 16 have inadvertently been transposed? The Chairman: No notice of amendment has been received in respect of these Supplementary Estimates. The sum of $570,730 for Head 0803 ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1970-7 I. The sum of $102,090 for Head 1101 ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1970-71. The sum of $40,000 for Head 1103 ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1970-71. Question, "That the sum of $712,820 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1970, to 31st March, 1971, contained in Paper Cmd. 19 of 1970." put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.45 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to provide statutory authority in accordance with clause 2 of Article 85 and clause 2 of Article 87 of the Constitution of Singapore for additional provisions for expenditure in excess of the provisions for expenditure authorised by the Supply Act, 1970. These additional sums have been scheduled as Supplementary Estimates which have been considered and approved by the House as Cmd. Paper No. 17 of 1970. They are required for meeting increases in the special allowances for Members of Parliament from $500 per month to $1,000 per month, and in the personal emoluments of the following: Cabinet Ministers: from $2,500 per month to $4,500 per month Ministers of State: from $2,000 per month to $2,500 per month Parliamentary Secretaries: from $1,500 per month to $1,750 per month Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Third Reading”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 21, to leave out "eight" and insert "nine". The same reason as I have mentioned above applies. Amendment agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 - Amendments made: In page 2, line 30, to leave out "eight" and insert "nine". - [Mr Tang See Chim]. In page 2, line 39, to leave out "eight" and insert "nine". - [Mr Tang See Chim]. In page 3, line 22, to leave out "eight" and insert "nine". - [Mr Tang See Chim]. Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed. CIVIL LIST AND PENSION BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.01 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 13, to leave out "eight" and insert "nine". At the First Reading of the Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, eight years was specified as the qualifying period. As I said in moving the Second Reading, one full term of Parliament lasts for five years; two terms would be ten years. On deeper reflection, therefore, we consider that nine years of reckonable service would be more appropriate. Hence the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution. Resolution reported - "That the sum of $570,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1970, to 31st March, 1971, contained in Paper Cmd. 17 of 1970." Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution." Question put, and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to. PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.50 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is expected that the flats will be completed by early 1971. JURONG TOWN (Steps to improve telephone services) 2. Mr Ho Kah Leong asked the Minister for Communications whether he is aware that the telephone services in Jurong Town are inadequate to cope with the demands in the mornings, and what steps the Singapore Telephone Board proposes to take to improve telephone services in the Town.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already said that the very purpose of revaluation is to ensure that the property correctly reflects its market value, and that it should be done annually. I just do not understand what the Member wants. If he says that any annual value above $6,000 will attract income tax, that is not correct because it is only if the net annual value of the property is above $6,000 then it will attract income tax. The "net annual value" is defined as the gross annual value minus the property tax you pay, minus the premium you pay on insuring your property, minus maintenance, and also minus any interest that you may have to pay on mortgaging the property. But I suppose anybody who lives in a house that has a net annual value of $6,000 or above would have bought it outright and not have to pay any mortgage interest. I am still not quite sure what the Member wants, Sir. I think what he objects to is that any property having a net annual value of above $6,000 attracts income tax as well as property tax. Therefore, he says it is two taxes. That is not correct because any income is supposed to attract income tax, and a piece of property gives you a notional income. However, the Government is generous enough and now provides in the law that any property having a net annual value of less than $6,000 will not attract income tax on its annual value.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid I do not know what assurance the Member for Punggol wants me to give. I thought he wanted me to give an assurance that properties would not be revalued year by year, and I said that I could not give that assurance. In fact, our very aim is to revalue properties annually so that their annual values could reflect their current market values. I am not too sure, Mr Speaker, Sir, what the Member for Punggol wants, but perhaps if he could simplify his question, I might be able to say whether or not I can give him the assurance he wants.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, I have said that the concessions will continue for as long as the economic situation warrants it. That is all the assurance I can give to this House. The Government's policy on taxation was given to this House by my Minister during his Budget Statement on the 9th March, 1970. I can do no better than to quote him. In l of the Hansard, he said: 'The Government's policy in recent years has been to depend on fast economic expansion and improved tax administration to provide increased revenue rather than raise rates of taxation to higher levels or introduce new taxes.' It is therefore in the interest of everyone in this country, not less the property owners, to see that there is no let-up in the economic progress of our country. SINGAPORE STOCK EXCHANGE (Publication of Ferris Report) 3. Mr Hwang Soo Jin asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether he will publish the report by Mr George M. Ferris Jr, of the International Executive Service Corps on his study of the securities market in Singapore; (b) whether and what useful recommendations aimed at providing greater protection for the public have been accepted by his Ministry; and (c) when the recommendations will be implemented.”
“A Bill will be introduced in Parliament to amend the income Tax Ordinance for increasing the exemption limit from $3,000 to $6,000 of the net annual value of owner-occupied houses. Further, the revision in annual values will not result in any additional property tax liability for owner-occupiers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the recent revaluation exercise covered about 7,000 owner-occupied properties in addition to other properties whose values had not been revised for years. The revised values reflect current rental values for similar properties, the annual values of owner-occupied properties range between 25 per cent and 75 per cent of the true annual values. The Property Tax Division collates and analyses information on rentals and values to derive the rental an unfurnished property would obtain on the market if rented. While for a majority of owner-occupied properties the annual values have been revised by 100 per cent to 150 per cent, there are instances where the annual values have been revised by 250 per cent. In such cases, it only goes to show the magnitude of under-assessment of annual values through failure to revise values over the years. The International Monetary Fund Team which studied our taxation and revenue machinery last year has commented that property tax is the weakest component of Singapore's tax structure and a complete reorganisation of the department with additional staff is now taking place. Although it is obvious that the status quo cannot be maintained for long, every consideration will be given to grant relief to owner-occupiers. For a start, it is proposed to bring relief to owner-occupiers by increasing the exempt net annual value from $3,000 to $6,000 for income tax purposes. This will ensure that a taxpayer living in his own house does not have to pay additional income tax, except for those who live in luxurious splendour in residences whose net annual value exceeds $6,000 per annum.”
“Although the Member's remarks were on the principle of the Bill and should have been raised at the Second Reading, I do not mind answering him. The answer is no. For those officers who do not perform their duties efficiently, they can still be retired in the public interest under the provisions of the old law. But the present amending provision is to enable officers to retire when their retirement is, in fact, in their interest as well as in the interest of the service, with no stigma whatsoever attaching to such retirement. Question put, and agreed to. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. TOURIST PROMOTION BOARD (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.50 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Anson had not been paying attention to what I said on the Second Reading of this Bill. I said quite clearly that retirement in the public interest carries a certain stigma. It is presumed that the officer who was retired in the public interest was not up to his task and was therefore asked to retire "in the public interest". There have been very clear instances where it was in the interest of the officers concerned as well as in the interest of the service that they should be retired. But under the existing Ordinance, that is not possible because an officer can only retire on reaching the retiring age or be retired in the public interest. The purpose of this amending Bill, therefore, is to make retirement possible for an officer whose behaviour cannot be criticised. In the words of the Commission: "there can be no possible shadow of criticism of the officers concerned." 3.45 p.m. The purpose of this Bill is that where it is in the interest of the service as well as the officer concerned that he should be retired, he could be so retired under this Bill without any stigma attached to his retirement.”
“No, Sir. An officer can only be retired if it is in the interest of the service as well as the officer himself. If he wishes to retire in order to secure a better job, such retirement would not be in the interest of the service. 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 Tang See Chim]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 3.43 p.m. Clause 1 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Civil Service Salaries Commission, under the chairmanship of Mr G. J. Harvey, recommended in its report that provision be made in the Pensions Ordinance for the premature retirement of an officer or groups of officers under special circumstances where, to quote the Commission, "there can be no possible shadow of criticism of the officers concerned." There have been instances where it is clearly in the interest of the service and of the officers concerned to allow them to retire. Under the law as it stands, such retirements can only be effected under the provision relating to retirements in the public interest. This is not satisfactory because, through usage over the years, there is a stigma attached to retirements in the public interest. To retire officers under this clause simply because of the absence of a more appropriate one, results in casting an unfair slur on the officers concerned. The amendment under consideration is to rectify the situation by providing for premature retirements that are not made on disciplinary grounds. This Bill seeks to amend the Pensions Ordinance to allow an officer who has completed not less than 15 years of service to be retired. In order to protect the interests of officers, such retirements may only be allowed with the consent of the President on the specific advice of the Cabinet. An officer retiring in such circumstances would be eligible for normal retirement benefits based on the number of years of service he has put in. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.41 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 23, to leave out "Saturday" and insert "Saturdays". This is just a grammatical correction. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed. CONTROL OF MANUFACTURE (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.26 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, line 4, to leave out from "Act," to the end of line 5 and insert "1970". This is a technical amendment, Sir, necessitated by the elapse of time. Amendment agreed to.”
“This amendment does not cover bills drawn and payable in Singapore currency - known as Singapore bills - and such other bills which the Minister may prescribe. For these bills, Saturday would still be a business day. In view of the special relationship with Malaysia and Brunei, provision is made for the exemption of Malaysian and Brunei usance bills and cheques from the proposed amendments. Banks in Singapore have indicated that, in order to promote Singapore's tourist industry, they are prepared to continue to accept traveller's cheques on Saturdays. 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 Tang See Chim]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 3.20 p.m. Clause 1 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The present law governing bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes is the Malaysian Bill of Exchange Ordinance, 1949 (Federation of Malaya Ordinance No. 75 of 1949). The operation of this Ordinance was extended to Singapore by the Modification of Laws (Bills of Exchange) (Extension) Order, 1965, and remains in force by virtue of section 13 of the Republic of Singapore Independence Act, 1965. Amongst other things, the Bill of Exchange Ordinance determines what a non-business day is for foreign exchange transactions and for the computation of time for the payment of bills of exchange. Experiences in international currency crises in the past years have made local banks reluctant to conduct on Saturdays foreign exchange business, such as the sale of foreign currencies for the retirement of bills, telegraphic transfers, demand drafts and the purchase of foreign currencies in respect of export bills, etc. This is because if banks in Singapore transact foreign exchange business on Saturdays, they would not be able to cover their positions because of the Saturday closure of other international financial centres, particularly the London and the New York markets. After due consideration, and taking account of the representations made to it by the Association of Banks in Malaysia-Singapore, the Government has decided to allow banks in Singapore to close their foreign exchange operations on Saturdays. This is in keeping with the practice of other international financial centres. The Bill now before the House seeks to amend the law by making Saturdays non-business days and excluding them from the computation of time for the payment of bills of exchange.”
“Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.”
“For example, if profits are earned in Australia, the Australian Government will have the primary right to tax the profits. Normally, without double taxation agreements, when the profits are remitted back to Singapore, the Singapore Government will also exercise the right to tax such profits. However, under a double taxation agreement with, say, Australia, it is normally provided that once the profits are taxed in Australia, they are not taxed again when they are remitted back to Singapore. The proviso in clause 3, however, gives the Minister the discretion to exempt profits from tax where such profits derived from countries with which Singapore has no double taxation agreement are remitted back to Singapore. That is the position. With regard to the remark made by the Member for Sembawang that the provisions of this Bill are only for the rich. I say that it is not true. If he will remember that an ordinary wage-earner, who has a wife and two children and earning less than $500 a month is not subject to tax, he will not make such a complaint; he will realise that the P.A.P. Government is a socialist one and does not tax workers with a small income. The Member also touched on the question of property tax. I am very happy to announce in this House that the Government has decided to reduce property tax for all owner-occupiers of Housing Board flats to the uniform rate of 23 per cent of the annual value. This again is another manifestation of the Government's policy to encourage people to own their own homes and to create a stable and prosperous society. 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 Tang See Chim].”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank those Members who spoke in support of this Bill. They have all spoken very well of our economic policies, and I think Singapore justly deserves to be the financial centre of this part of the world. The provisions in this amendment Bill are, in fact, making this possible. I think two Members complained that certain provisions, like the provisions for commencement and cessation, were not introduced earlier. My reply is that it is better late than never. Anyway, the present provisions for commencement and cessation are straightforward and would not lead to misunderstanding by taxpayers that they are taxed twice in the year of commencement. I think the Member for Bras Basah wants an assurance from me that the present taxpayers who commenced business or employment before the coming into force of the Act would get the benefit of the old cessation provision. Mr Speaker, Sir, I can give this categorical assurance. In fact, it is provided in the Bill that those who commenced business or employment before the coming into force of this Act would get the benefit when their business or employment ceases. The Member for Telok Blangah is labouring under some misapprehension. The proviso in clause 3 clearly states that the Minister will have the discretion to exempt from tax income from countries with which we have no double taxation agreement. But where there is a double taxation agreement, provision is made normally for the exemption of tax on income when it is remitted back to Singapore, because income is normally taxed at the place where it is earned. The whole idea of double taxation agreements is that they will not be taxed twice.”
“This is a procedural amendment which is necessary to prevent tax losses, taking into account the repeal of the old cessation provisions and the introduction of the strict preceding-year basis of assessment. Clause 14 is to permit the Comptroller to withhold the refund of any tax collected until the matter has been finally determined in the Courts of law with provision for interest to be paid on the amount so withheld. This would safeguard revenue and prevent taxpayers from being able to obtain refund of tax which the Comptroller may not be able to recover when the case is finally decided in favour of the Government. Clause 15 lists the stocks and bonds which are tax-free at the date of publication of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.05 p.m.”
“Clause 8 is aimed at restricting the carry-forward of losses to such cases where the beneficial shareholders to whom the carry-forward of losses is to be allowed are substantially the same as those in the company which incurred the losses. This is to prevent abuses resulting from the purchase by unrelated persons of companies which have substantial losses in order to derive tax benefits. Clause 9 repeals the existing law which provides for tax at the rate of 10 per cent on interest received by non-residents from deposits in approved banks, as the new provisions in clause 3 allow complete exemption. Clause 10 deals with the manner in which interest from tax-free bonds and stocks is dealt with for tax purposes, where the recipients are banks and financial institutions. Since such organisations receive the interest as trading receipts and are allowed to deduct, as expenses, the cost incurred in the garnering of funds, etc., the credit allowed is one-half of the tax on the income from interest which is brought to charge for tax purposes. Clauses 11 and 13 are provisions which require the remaining partners in a partnership to keep the Comptroller informed where any partner is leaving the partnership or leaving the country. The remaining partners are made liable for the tax payable by any person who ceases to be a partner where moneys have been paid to an outgoing partner without the written permission of the Comptroller. This is to tighten up on possible avenues for tax evasion. Clause 12 allows the Comptroller to raise advance assessments where a person's source of income ceases or when he is about to leave the country.”
“The taxpayer, however, gets the benefit of the cessation provision by which in the year during which he ceases receiving income, his tax is not based on the full earnings during the preceding year, but on his actual earnings in the year of cessation. In addition, the income from one of the two preceding years is relieved from tax. However, this is not generally appreciated and there is a general misconception that when a person commences employment he is taxed twice. Under the proposed amendment, the income assessed for any year of assessment shall always be that earned in the preceding year, e.g., a person commencing employment in 1970 will only be liable for tax in 1971 based on his 1970 income. This will allow for a straightforward computation of tax liability and, at the same time, curb manipulations resulting in loss of revenue by artificial commencements and cessations. All in all, the proposed amendment, by which in each year a person is liable for tax based on his actual income in the preceding year, is simpler and more easily understood. Transitional provisions have been made, so that those who have been liable to tax under the commencement provisions will still have the benefit of the old cessation provisions. All taxpayers who commence their trade, business or employment after 1st January, 1969, will be assessed under the new preceding-year basis. Those who have already paid tax in 1969 and who commenced employment or trade in 1969 will be subject to tax in 1970 but the tax paid in 1969 will be credited against their 1970 tax liability. Clause 7 is a consequential amendment arising from the repeal of the old commencement and cessation provisions.”
“This will allow flexibility, so that in cases where the Minister considers it desirable, income received in Singapore from specified overseas investments may be exempted from tax. When the Merchant Shipping (Amendment) Act, 1968, was before the House last year, it was announced that exemption from income tax would be granted to Singapore-registered ships. Clause 4 is in accordance with that statement and the amendment seeks to exempt from tax income derived from 1st January, 1969, from the operation of Singapore-registered ships. This exemption will apply whether a ship belongs to a Singapore owner or an owner resident outside Singapore and is designed to encourage the registration of ships under The Singapore flag, thereby creating employment opportunities for our citizens. The response from maritime circles has already been encouraging. Clause 5 provides for the repeal of the provisions allowing double deductions for market development expenditure. As the Economic Incentives Act is comprehensive, covering a wide range of incentives, double deductions for market development are no longer necessary. Clause 6 alters the existing commencement and cessation provisions which have often perplexed a number of taxpayers in the first one or two years of assessment. Under the existing provisions, while for the first year of the three-year commencement period, the income for tax purposes is the amount of income in that calendar year, in the second tax year, the income is computed by reference to the income for one year from the date of commencement, resulting in the income for the first twelve months being used as the basis for assessing tax liability in the first two years.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill makes a number of important amendments to the Income Tax Ordinance. The amendments range from exemption from income tax on interest accruing to non-residents and on shipping profits, to simplifying the commencement and cessation provisions of the Act. For the benefit of Members, I shall go through the Bill clause by clause. Clause 1 provides for the Act to come into operation from 1st January, 1970. Clause 2 is to permit the Comptroller to give information to the Manager of the Central Provident Fund Board, where such information is required by the latter for the performance of his duties. Under the existing provisions, this is not permissible. Clause 3 provides for complete exemption from income tax on interest from deposits in approved banks derived in Singapore by non-residents. Members will recall that in 1967, the rate of tax was reduced from 40 per cent to 10 per cent on interest earned by non-resident depositors in approved banks. The amendment also provides for exemption from tax, of interest derived on or after 1st January, 1968, by all persons, resident or non-resident, from deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank. These exemptions are designed to make banks in Singapore even more attractive as depositories for surplus funds from outside Singapore and also to encourage people to cultivate the saving habit with the Post Office Savings Bank. As the law now stands, any income remitted from outside Singapore to a Singapore resident is subject to tax in Singapore. Provision is also being made for the Minister to exempt from tax income remitted from abroad and received by a person resident in Singapore where relief is not provided under double taxation agreements.”
“As such, the endorsement of the seal has to be done at a Committee member's office in the presence of both the member and the Secretary, and the Committee member's office may be far away from the Secretariat. Rubber exporters have complained that such procedures have caused unnecessary delay in the endorsement of urgently required Certificates, resulting in delay in the shipment of rubber. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 3.54 p.m. This Bill, therefore, seeks to simplify the procedure for the affixing of the Association's common seal on Certificates of Origin. It seeks to do away with the requirement of a resolution and allows the seal to be affixed in the presence of the Secretary and any other person so authorised by the Committee. This simplified procedure applies to Certificates of Origin only and does not apply to any other document. 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 Tang See Chim]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.56 p.m.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Subsection (2) of section 3 of the Rubber Association of Singapore (Incorporation) Act, 1967, provides for a common seal of the Association. Subsection (4) of section 3 of that Act provides for the use of this seal, in that the seal can be affixed only pursuant to a resolution by the Committee and in the presence of, and witnessed by, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman or any member of the Management Committee and by the Secretary. At present, the Rubber Association of Singapore issues Certificates of Origin to rubber exporters to facilitate shipments of rubber to European and American countries. Though there is no statutory requirement that a Certificate of Origin must be sealed to be valid, it is an accepted commercial practice to seal such certificates. All Certificates of Origin issued by the Trade Division of the Ministry of Finance, for example, are sealed by the Government seal. In the case of Certificates of Origin issued by the Rubber Association of Singapore, certain European countries like Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece have refused to accept these Certificates of Origin unless they are sealed, and such refusal would affect our export of rubber to those countries. The present procedure for the endorsement of the common seal on Certificates of Origin issued by the Association is extremely cumbersome. Quite apart from the requirement of a resolution, it is also not convenient for all endorsements to be carried out in the presence of a member of the Committee, whether he be the Chairman or Deputy Chairman or an ordinary Committee member. This is because members of the Association and the Association's Secretary do not share the same premises.”
“It is hoped that this Bill will further achieve the purpose for which the Act is intended, i.e., the protection of the depositors as well as the orderly expansion of finance companies. 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 Tang See Chim]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment: read a Third time and passed. RUBBER ASSOCIATION OF SINGAPORE (INCORPORATION) (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.50 p.m.”
“The present law provides that no finance company is permitted to acquire any immovable property except for the purpose of conducting financing business. While it is recognised that channelling too large a proportion of depositors' funds to acquire immovable properties may be of adverse interest to the depositors, nonetheless the finance companies should not be totally prevented from direct investment in immovable properties which offer an assured and growing income and become increasingly popular. Clause 13, therefore, removes this restriction and allows a finance company to acquire immovable properties up to 25 per cent of its paid-up capital and reserves, and such other additional property as may be approved by the Commissioner. Apart from the foregoing, the scope of the Act has been narrowed so that it will not apply to licensed pawnbrokers whose business is already subject to the control of the Pawnbrokers Ordinance. Conversely, licensed finance companies will be specifically exempted from the operation of the Moneylenders Ordinance. Provisions are also incorporated to empower the Commissioner to compound offences and make regulations to control advertisements by finance companies. Other amendments are concerned with the inspection and investigation of finance companies or are mainly intended to improve the administration of the Act. It is not unlikely that some finance companies will still express dissatisfaction over some of the provisions of the law in spite of the fact that they will have been relaxed. But certain minimum standards and norms must be observed. It is believed that this amendment Bill strikes the happy medium between the interests of shareholders in maximising profits and the protection of the depositors' funds.”
“For this purpose, licensed finance companies are divided into two categories: (a) companies whose paid-up capital and reserves are $2 million and above each - these are required to transfer to reserve fund at the lower rates; (b) companies whose paid-up capital and reserves are less than $2 million each - these are required to transfer to reserve fund at higher rates. Clause 10 amends section 17 and relaxes the restriction on unsecured loans by raising the limit for each unsecured loan from $1,000 at present to $5,000 so as to enable the finance company to have a certain amount of "clean" lending to those who are considered credit-worthy, but the aggregate of all unsecured loans should not exceed 10 per cent of the finance company's paid-up capital and reserves. A new provision has been added imposing a ceiling on secured loans to any single borrower to not exceeding 60 per cent of the paid-up capital and reserves of the finance company, but, with the approval of the Commissioner, this limit of 60 per cent may be raised to 100 per cent of the paid-up capital and reserves. The introduction of this limit is to spread the risk of lending of the finance company, so that "all the eggs would not be put in one basket", so to speak, which may endanger the interests of depositors. A finance company is prohibited from investing more than 25 per cent of its paid-up capital and reserves in any other undertakings. Clause 12 raises this limit to 50 per cent, provided the approval of the Commissioner is obtained. This serves to improve the capacity of finance companies as institutional investors or, alternatively, it will enable finance companies to participate in equities aimed at economic development.”
“Since it is the aim of the Act to protect depositors' funds, those companies which engage in hire-purchase financing, but do not accept deposits from the public, will still not be subject to the provisions of the Act. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 3.40 p.m. Clause 4 adds a new section - section 3A - to the principal Act. This new section restricts the use of the term "finance company" or any of its derivatives indicating that a company transacts financing business. Henceforth, the use of the words "finance company" will be confined to only finance companies licensed under this Act in the same manner as the word "bank" is restricted to companies doing banking business. This is to avoid confusion and provide the means to the members of the public to distinguish a company which is licensed to carry on financing business from the great number of companies which are not so licensed, but whose business is akin to that of "financing business". Clause 7 repeals section 12 of the principal Act and substitutes therefor a new section. The existing law provides that every finance company shall maintain a reserve fund and, before any dividend is declared, it shall annually transfer a certain percentage of net profits to reserve to strengthen the company. This restriction on payment of dividend to shareholders will now be relaxed, so that adequate profits may be left over for distribution to the shareholders to encourage equity participation in finance companies. On the other hand, it is felt that smaller finance companies should be encouraged to grow faster by building up their reserves at the higher rates. The amendment, therefore, provides for different amounts to be transferred to reserve fund according to the paid-up capital of the finance companies.”
“This Committee was chaired by the Commissioner for Finance Companies and included representatives from the two finance associations and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce as well as consultants from the International Monetary Fund. It considered various memoranda and proposals submitted to it and held discussions and consultations with the Solicitor-General, the Registrar of Companies and other Government departments concerned with the working of the Act. As a result of its deliberations, it recommended certain amendments to the Act which are incorporated in the amendment Bill now before the House. The Bill seeks to amend the Finance Companies Act, 1967, by introducing a number of unrelated amendments designed, in the main, to alleviate or relax the strictness of certain provisions in their application to the business activities of finance companies. In the task of protecting depositors' funds, it must be conceded that the profitability of finance companies should not be unduly crippled by the too restrictive provisions. The more important amendments are as follows. Clause 2 amends section 2 of the Act on the definition of "financing business". This amendment extends the definition of "financing business" to include hire-purchase companies which accept deposits from the public. As now defined in the Act, "financing business" means, in summary, the carrying on of the dual function of borrowing money from, and lending money to, the public, but as hire-purchase financing by legal definition is not lending of money, these hire-purchase companies have so far not been brought within the ambit of the Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Finance Companies Act, 1967, was passed by Parliament on 21st December, 1967, and was brought into operation on 10th January, 1968. The purpose of the Act is to safeguard the interests of the public who deposit funds with finance companies. Since the coming into operation of the Act, companies transacting financing business have been licensed and their operations subject to the supervision and control of the Commissioner for Finance Companies. Members will recollect that during the Second Reading of the Finance Companies Bill in Parliament in December 1967, the Minister for Finance explained that it was necessary to pass the Bill without reference to Select Committee, so that proper control could be established immediately to check the future proliferation of finance companies. However, the Minister for Finance also indicated that every consideration would be given to representations from finance companies and, if necessary, amending legislation could later be proposed. Since the coming into operation of the Act, the Finance Ministry has received representations from the Association of Finance Companies, the Finance House Association of Singapore and the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce on certain provisions of the Act. After consideration of the views expressed and in the light of the experiences gained in the last two years or so in regulating and controlling the operations of the finance companies, it was felt that a comprehensive review of the Act need be carried out. An Advisory Committee was then formed for this purpose.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Salaries Commission recommended that the salaries of Puisne Judges should be considered in relation to the salaries of the civil service in Singapore and that the former relationship between the salaries of the Judges and the Permanent Secretaries should be restored. The Commission also suggested that if the recommendation regarding the salaries of Puisne Judges is accepted, then the emoluments of, inter alia, the Chief Justice should also be reviewed. With the introduction of Superscale 'B' (all-in salary of $2,700 a month) and Superscale 'A' (all-in $3,000 a month) for Permanent Secretaries on a personal-to-holder basis, it was decided that a comparable revision of the salaries of the Chief Justice and Puisne Judges be effected. Accordingly, the salary of the Chief Justice has been revised from $2,570 a month (basic) to $3,500 a month (consolidated) and for the Puisne Judges from $2,100 a month (basic) to $2,700 a month (consolidated). This revision was effected retrospectively from 1st January, 1969, administratively. To give legal effect to this revision, it is necessary for the Judges' Remuneration Act, 1963, of Malaysia to be amended. This Bill seeks to do just that. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.- [Mr Tang See Chim]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. FINANCE COMPANIES (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.35 p.m.”
“Clause 3 seeks to amend section 14 of the principal Ordinance to make it mandatory for all regulations made under the Ordinance to be published in the Gazette and presented to Parliament as soon as possible after publication. 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 Tang See Chim]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. JUDGES' REMUNERATION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.30 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a very short amendment Bill, the aim of which is to simplify the procedures for invoking the law against dumping of imported goods in Singapore. The Customs (Dumping and Subsidies) Ordinance, 1962, which first came into force on 16th April, 1962, provides the legislative framework against the dumping of imported goods in Singapore and for safeguarding locally-made goods from unfair competition posed by imported goods which have been subsidised by their countries of origin. Under the Ordinance, the powers to invoke the law and impose duties rest with the President of the Republic. These powers have so far been invoked only once, and it was found that the procedures for invoking these powers were rather cumbersome. This amendment Bill, therefore, seeks to adopt a less cumbersome procedure, by transferring the powers from the President to the Minister, to enable the Minister to impose duties by publishing an order in the Gazette and presenting it to Parliament. This procedure is in line with other revenue legislation and is aimed at facilitating the imposition of duties and preventing any delays. Speedy action in cases of this nature is necessary to protect the interests of our local industries and of our honest trading partners, and to penalise those who are engaged in unfair competition by dumping imported goods in Singapore or who have the benefits of subsidies from foreign countries. The transfer of powers from the President to the Minister is to be effected by clause 4 of the Bill. Clause 2 provides for such powers to be exercised by the Minister by publishing an order in the Gazette and presenting it to Parliament.”
“My Ministry has found no valid reason for making any change to the existing Income Tax Ordinance so as to give relief to such contributions. FACTORIES ORDINANCE (Inclusion of I.L.O, safety regulations) 4. Inche Abdul Aziz Karim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour if he will consider widening the scope of the provisions in the Factories Ordinance by including the safety regulations recommended by the International Labour Organisation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Sia Kah Hui) (for the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour): Mr Speaker, Sir, the scope of the existing Factories Ordinance is sufficiently comprehensive for safeguarding the health and safety of persons employed in factories. Relevant International Labour Organisation safety regulations have already been used by the Factory Inspectorate to guide the factory occupiers in safety and health practices in such industries as the iron and steel industry, the chemical industry, textile mills and industrial gases manufacturing plants. Further, there is provision in the Ordinance for the Minister to make special regulations to uphold higher standards of safety and health of workers in industry where the risk of bodily injury is abnormal.”
“Medical insurance schemes are for the benefit of the persons taking out these schemes. As a general rule, there is no income tax relief for accident schemes and, as I have just said, they are not in the same category as life insurance schemes which are, in fact, savings schemes. Inche Abdul Aziz Karim: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider changing the Income Tax Ordinance so that tax relief can be granted on premiums paid for medical insurance schemes?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, premiums for group medical insurance under most collective agreements are payable by employers. As such, they are trade or business expenses and have always been deductible from income for tax purposes. There are a few schemes under collective agreements in which employees may voluntarily participate and make small payments to cover themselves and their families for hospitalisation and surgical benefits. Under the law, medical expenses of the community at large are not deductible for income tax purposes and there is no valid reason to give special relief for contributions by employees to group medical insurance schemes. Such contributions are similar to payments for personal accident policies, for which no income tax relief is given, and are not in the same category as provident funds or life insurance policies which are, in fact, savings schemes, although the latter provide for capital sums being payable on death.”
“There is no plan just now to change the uniforms of school police cadets. TAX RELIEFS ON PREMIUMS FOR GROUP MEDICAL INSURANCE SCHEMES 3. Inche Abdul Aziz Karim asked the Minister for Finance if he will consider granting tax reliefs on premiums for group medical insurance schemes which have been introduced by collective agreements, in the same manner as reliefs are allowed on premiums for life insurance policies and contributions to provident funds.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as I know, no other group exists which needs a change of uniforms. But if the Member can make out a case for a change, his suggestion will be considered and, if found necessary, the uniform will be changed. But as I said, the uniform will not be changed just for the sake of a change.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, uniforms are issued to civil servants who are required to wear uniforms for easy recognition or identification by the public to prevent undue wear and tear to their own personal clothing, or for reasons of prestige and ceremony. In the case of the Police and Customs, uniforms are provided mainly for purposes of easy recognition and identification. As they belong to law-enforcing forces, their uniforms should have the appearance of smartness and dignity to command better respect, it is with this object in mind that their uniforms were changed. Where a similar need exists, the uniforms of a particular group of officers will be changed, but uniforms will not be changed just for the sake of a change.”