PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENTS BILL (Select Committee's Report)
Legislative Assembly of Singapore · 8 October 1958 · 1st Legislative Assembly
Official Report, 8 October 1958, Vol 7, Issue 3 · Open in the reader (summaries, search, filters)
3.45 p.m.
The Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary (Mr M. P. D. Nair): Sir, I rise to move,
That the Report of the Select Committee on the Public Entertainments Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 12 of 1958, be adopted.
Sir, it will be seen that the Select Committee held four meetings and considered written representations received from and heard oral evidence given by a number of interested bodies. A number of amendments have been made to the text of the Bill and these amendments are incorporated in the Bill appearing as Appendix II of the Report. Some of the amendments are substantial ones and I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members to them.
After considering representations made to the Committee, clause 8 has been amended to extend the maximum period of expiry of a licence from three months to 12 months.
Clause 10 attracted, as expected, most of the representations made on the Bill. Various arguments were put forward that the under 16 years of age non-admittance provision should be extremely difficult to carry out in practice, especially in cinemas. The Government's view is that this provision should remain, as it is considered that it should be enforced in respect of certain classes of entertainment which need not necessarily include cinemas. Sir, in the interests of youth welfare, operators of certain types of entertainment must be made to realise their responsibility in preventing underage children from entering their premises. The Committee has, however, amended this clause to provide for the Minister instead of the Licensing Officer to prescribe by notification in the Gazette what type of public entertainment is to be made subject to the under 16 years of age provision.
With regard to clause 11, Sir, objections were raised against the requirement of giving security. It is considered, however, that the furnishing of security has been most useful in the control of certain types of shows. However, in order to meet some of the representations made, the clause has been amended to limit the powers of the Licensing Officer and to provide for the Minister, by notification in the Gazette, to limit the amount of security and the type of entertainment and also to provide for an appeal to the Minister in the event of forfeiture.
In clauses 13 and 14 amendments have been made to stipulate a reasonable period of seven days within which the grounds for the refusal of the licence should be furnished to an applicant. No period was stated previously in this respect.
Finally, Sir, after considering the representations made on clause 22 of the draft Bill, the clause which allows the Licensing Officer to seek the advice of bodies associated with the control of boxing promotion events or public entertainment, and provides that it shall be sufficient ground for refusing an application if any such body advises refusal, the Committee has deleted the whole clause from the Bill.
These, Sir, are the major amendments to the Bill. The other amendments made are either self-explanatory or for the purpose of improving the drafting of the Bill and do not, I think, call for any comment. Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Chew Swee Kee: Sir, I second it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Report of the Select Committee on the Public Entertainments Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 12 of 1958, be adopted.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
Source: Singapore Parliament Official Report (Hansard) for 8 October 1958. Republished on SGParliament.