ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

10.41 a.m.

The Acting Financial Secretary (Mr Oon Khye Kiang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Entertainments Duty Ordinance was first enacted in 1950 and came into force in October of that year. It is proposed to amend certain sections of the Ordinance in the light of eight years' experience.

It has been found that the definition of "proprietor" in section 2 of the Ordinance has proved inadequate for the purpose of charging principals in the Courts in respect of the breach of the law, as it is often difficult to ascertain who the manager of an entertainment is. Under the Public Entertainments Ordinance, it is incumbent on any person who organises a public entertainment to obtain a police licence, and it is proposed that such licensee should also be held responsible in respect of any offence against the Entertainments Duty Ordinance, and any rules made thereunder. The proprietor is so defined as to include the licensee of a public entertainment.

The second major amendment relates to section 4 of the Ordinance. It will be recalled that at the meeting held on the 18th December, 1951, the former Legislative Council passed a resolution under section 4 (1) of the Ordinance levying half-duty in respect of live entertainment. It is proposed to incorporate this provision in the proposed amendment in clause 3.

In section 2 of the Ordinance, entertainment is defined as including "any exhibition, performance, amusement, games or sport, to which persons are admitted on payment". Since the enactment of the above resolution, the various Singapore amusement parks, known as the "Worlds", have paid full duty in respect of admission charges. Whilst an amusement park is certainly an entertainment as defined in section 2 of the Ordinance, there is some doubt whether it might not be held to be included among those forms of entertainment which, by virtue of the proviso to the resolution referring to live entertainment, are charged duty at half-rate. It was certainly not the intention that the amusement parks should pay only half-duty, and the opportunity is therefore taken to clarify the position.

The position of the open-air cinemas has been under examination. At the moment, there are 22 such cinemas operating in the rural areas and three in the city. They cater mainly for persons in the lower income group, such as farmers, fishermen, manual workers and students. The popular prices are 50 cents, 30 cents and 20 cents, on which duty leviable is respectively 15 cents, 10 cents and 5 cents. The operator is usually left with a nett of 15 cents to 35 cents to meet his overhead expenditure, which may come to $3,000 or $3,500 per month. The open-air cinemas do not receive income from advertisements as do the other big cinemas. They are subject to the vagaries of the weather. On the other hand, they are meeting the demand for entertainment which will not be supplied by the ordinary cinema operator. In that sense they are providing a social amenity to the community. They are in most cases working under difficult conditions and often suffer losses. It is therefore thought that there is a case for relief in this instance, and the Government has therefore decided to grant relief to the extent of remitting half-duty in respect of these open-air cinemas. I propose, Sir, to move an amendment to section 4 of the Ordinance in Committee. A notice to this effect has been given.

A dance, as such, is not liable to entertainment duty, but it is however necessary to ensure that, if the proprietor of a restaurant or ballroom charges a fee for admission, and thereafter stages a floor show or several floor shows lasting for more than half an hour in the aggregate, duty should be charged upon the admission fee. The proposed amendment in clause 4 relating to section 10 of the Ordinance is designed to this end.

At present, not all officers of the Customs Department have authority to inspect places connected with entertainments where tickets are surreptitiously sold in advance for entertainments to be held later. Senior officers of Customs are permitted to inspect only "places of entertainment" or "places ordinarily used as places of entertainment". All other places even though they are connected with entertainments are immune from inspection. In addition, the Entertainments Duty Ordinance requires such officers to inspect places of entertainment while the entertainment is in progress, thus making it difficult to detect offences which are usually committed shortly before the performance. As it is imperative to associate the junior Customs officers in these inspections, the proposed amendment in clause 5 is designed to enable an officer of Customs to enter and inspect at all reasonable times any place of entertainment, any place ordinarily used as a place of entertainment, as well as any other place he reasonably suspects to be connected with an entertainment. Similarly it is proposed in clause 7, which amends section 15 of the Ordinance, to extend the powers given to a senior Customs officer to an "officer of Customs" in respect of seizure of documents. The inspection of places of entertainment necessitates almost simultaneous checks at the admission gates (usually two or more) the box office as well as the manager's office from where documents relating to the entertainment can be obtained. Revenue officers of the Customs Department should therefore be given powers to seize such documents.

Clause 10 amends section 22 of the Ordinance by extending the authority given to a "senior officer of Customs" to an "officer of Customs" in respect of search.

Section 14 (2) of the Ordinance makes it mandatory for an arrested person to be taken to a police station. As this subsection now stands, taking such person to a customs station would constitute an unlawful act. The proposed amendment in clause 6 will make section 14 (2) of the Ordinance fall in line with section 31 (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, where an arrested person may be taken either to a police station or to a customs station, and with section 87 (2) of the Customs Ordinance which also makes alternative provision for the custody of arrested persons in the hands of a proper officer of Customs.

Clause 8 introduces two new sections - 17A and 17B. Section 17A provides for the compounding of offences so as to save the time of the Courts from having to deal with purely technical and minor offences. Section 17B enables senior officers of Customs to conduct prosecutions under the Entertainments Duty Ordinance.

Clause 9 introduces a new section 19A making attempts and abetments of offences punishable with the same punishment as offences. This new section will bring the Ordinance in line with section 111 of the Customs Ordinance and section 33 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Oon Khye Kiang].

Bill considered in Committee.

10.50 a.m.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3-

Mr Oon Khye Kiang: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, line 14, after "to", to insert "any open

air cinema or".

Sir, the object of this amendment is to concede half-duty to the open air cinema for the reasons as given in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 10 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with an Amendment; read the Third time and passed.