PROPERTY TAX BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

2.48 p.m.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that this Bill be proceeded with. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be read a Second time."

Sir, the object of this Bill is to provide for the levy of a tax on immovable properties in lieu of rates leviable under the Municipal Ordinance and the Local Government Ordinance, 1957, as on integration of the City Council into the Central Government, it will be no longer proper to levy Local Government rates on lands and buildings, since these are made on the basis of services and utilities of equivalent value being provided from the revenue so obtained. It will be necessary, therefore, to introduce a new system of taxation to replace these rates.

The present Bill follows closely the procedure laid down in the Local Government Ordinance for the assessment of annual value of property and collection of rates.

At present, rates are collected for the City area under powers contained in the Local Government Ordinance and for the rural areas under the Municipal Ordinance. The consolidated rate payable in respect of properties in the City area is now 36 per cent and section 7 of the Property Tax Ordinance lays down that the property tax payable each year shall be at this same rate of 36 per cent.

Some areas outside the City limits are, however, paying rates at less than 36 per cent applicable to the City area. It is intended to continue this practice of charging lower rates for rural areas and the first proviso to section 7 enables the Minister to direct that the rate or tax in such areas shall be such rate or rate less than 36 per cent.

The property tax proposals for 1961 are briefly as follows.

At present, properties within City limits are assessed at 36 per cent and properties in the rural areas are assessed at 14 per cent, 18 per cent, 20 per cent, 23 per cent, or 36 per cent consolidated rates. Instead of this multiplicity of rates, there will be only three rates of Property Tax for occupied lands, which will be 36 per cent, 27 per cent and 18 per cent.

Properties at present paying 36 per cent rates will continue to pay 36 per cent Property Tax on the annual value ascribed to the property. There are certain areas which previously were outside the City limits but which have been brought into the City area by the Local Government Ordinance, 1957, as defined in the First Schedule to the Ordinance. They comprise largely the areas at Pasir Panjang, Buona Vista, Ulu Pandan, Holland Road and Ulu Kallang. These areas were assessed at 23 per cent when they were in the rural areas and the assessment of 23 per cent was continued, although they were brought into the City limits with the coming into force of the Local Government Ordinance. These areas will now pay the rate of 36 per cent instead of 23 per cent.

There are also a number of housing estates in the rural areas which pay 23 per cent assessment. They are Adelphi Park, Sembawang Hill, Thomson Rise, Windsor Park, Serangoon Garden, Seletar Hill, Opera Estate, Spring and Bedok Estates, Hongkong Park, Bukit Timah Park and King Albert Park. These housing estates have enjoyed urban facilities as lighting, water, roads and so forth, and will therefore pay 36 per cent rate.

The 27 per cent rate areas will include areas at present paying 19 per cent, 20 per cent and 23 per cent. These areas will include properties lying within-

(i) ½ mile on either side of Bukit Timah Road from approximately 8 ½ m.s. and along Woodlands Road up to the Causeway;

(ii) ½ mile radius of Nee Soon and Chong Pang Villages and ¼ mile on either side of Jalan Kayu;

(iii) areas at Serangoon, Paya Lebar, Bedok, Changi and Loyang.

The remaining parts of the Island were previously paying 14 per cent or 18 per cent. They will now be assessed at 18 per cent. These areas comprise-

(i) the present undeveloped western portions of the Island, i.e., Jurong;

(ii) the undeveloped northern and north-eastern parts comprising Bukit Panjang, Sembawang, Serangoon and Katong;

(iii) some of the surrounding islands, i.e., Pulau Ubin, Pulau Tekong Kechil, Pulau Tekong Besar, Pulau Blakang Mati, Pulau Bukom, Pulau Bukom Kechil and a few other islands.

The above rates will be payable on houses or occupied lands. The rate for vacant lands is at present 36 per cent for properties in the City area and this 36 per cent for vacant lands will apply to the 36 per cent areas for 1961.

The rate for vacant lands in the 27 per cent and 18 per cent areas will be at 18 per cent and 12 per cent respectively.

Details of the proposals will be gazetted shortly and a plan will be made available for inspection showing the rates applicable to the whole Island.

These proposals are not final and the public will be given an opportunity up to 31st March, 1961, to make representations regarding the inclusion of any particular area or locality in one of the three rates of tax proposed.

I have stated in my Budget Statement that the present practice of assessing owner-occupied properties on favourable terms is irregular and that it is intended to stop this practice. However, in order not to penalise owner-occupiers of small properties, the rates of taxation will be fixed at less than the general rate. It will obviously take some time for the owner-occupied houses to be re-valued at the proper values. Until the re-valuation of these properties has been completed, owner-occupiers will continue to pay property rates at the proposed rates on present values. Similarly, provision is also made in respect of industrial premises in order to ensure that industrial undertakings are not hampered through the operation of the Bill.

It is proposed to withdraw the exemption of land and buildings used as public burial and burning grounds and certain institutions fostering the arts and sciences which are at present exempted from payment of rates under the Local Government Ordinance or the Municipal Ordinance on the grounds that these organisations are run on commercial lines and they charge fees or levies for their services. However, provision is made for exemption of deserving cases of this nature and of buildings used exclusively for purposes conducive to social development. Provision is also made to allow statutory bodies to pay half-yearly to the Government an equitable sum in lieu of property tax.

It is proposed to make it mandatory for any person who owns property which has not been assessed to give notice thereof to the Chief Assessor. It will also be mandatory for him to notify the Chief Assessor when a building ceases to be occupied by the owner thereof and is let. Because the tax is a tax on the ownership of property irrespective of whether it is occupied or not, refunds of tax for "letted" buildings which have become unoccupied during the tax year will cease.

Special provisions have been made for assessment of taxes on new buildings, buildings which have been rebuilt or enlarged, properties assessed for the first time, and properties which should have been assessed for rates under the Municipal Ordinance or the Local Government Ordinance prior to the coming into operation of this Ordinance but have not been so assessed. It is provided that in all these cases the tax shall be payable from the date of completion of the building or in the case of land from such date, not being more than six years prior to the date on which the property is first assessed, as may be determined by the Comptroller. In cases where a building ceases to be occupied by the owner and is let or where the rent thereof is increased, the tax payable from the date of such letting or increase of rent is to be calculated on the basis of a revised value which may subsequently be ascribed to such building. Provision has also been made for any annual value or revised annual value ascribed to a property during the second half of any year to remain the same for the ensuing year.

The procedure for hearing of objections on assessments has been completely revised by the establishment of an impartial Valuation Review Board and for appeals to the High Court. The Bill provides for temporary deletion from the Valuation List of properties in respect of which notice of objection to revision of annual value has been received and for interim payment on due date of taxes on such properties based on current valuation pending adjudication of the objection to the proposed revision.

In conclusion, I wish to say that it is not intended to levy Education and Improvement rates of 4 per cent each, and that these two sections in the Education and Planning Ordinance will be repealed.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.03 p.m.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, there are one or two aspects of the Bill upon which I wish to touch. The first, Mr Speaker, Sir, which I think is a very serious one, is the Minister's statement that in future it is not proposed to give refunds in respect of unoccupied property. And the basis for the change in law, it would appear, according to the Minister, is that as this is considered to be a property tax, therefore the mere owning of the property should attract the tax, whether or not the property, in fact, produces any income. That, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a very serious statement for the Minister for Finance to make. I personally cannot see any difference, from the taxing point of view, whether property is immovable or movable. The Minister for Finance says that if anybody in Singapore should be so foolish as to put his surplus money which is lying in the bank without earning any income, on a piece of land which, through circumstances beyond his control, ceases to produce any income, then that property is still liable to tax. Contra - if he keeps his money lying idle in the bank not earning any income, as the Minister has not yet decided to introduce a capital tax, he would be exempt from taxation in so far as his idle money is concerned. What then is the difference between tile two! If a man shakes a leg a bit and wants to help me State and himself, anti invests his money anti puts it to some profitable use, then me Minister says, "Because it is a property tax, I must tax you on the property even though it does not earn any income." Supposing a person owns 10 houses in, say, North Bridge Road, and if a slump were to come - it might yet come within the time of the present Government, some say it is already here - then that person who has 10 houses unlet would have to pay tax at 36 per cent. Where does he get his money from to pay this 36 per cent? He will end up in ruination, and so will the property market. And it the property market is brought to ruination, Mr Speaker, Sir, me economy of Singapore also would to a large extent be ruined.

Now, I would ask the Government to reconsider this proposition very seriously; even the principle is unacceptable. I can see no justification for saying that merely because you own property, you should pay tax on it. I think the property should be put to some use in respect of which the State is providing services. That is the basic proposition on which municipal assessments are levied, Mr Speaker, Sir, and not because you own property. The mere owning of property, from a municipal point of view, does not attract rates. But if the property is of such a nature that it attracts municipal services to itself, or the preservation of which depends on the provision of adequate municipal services, then in return for those services a rate is levied. That is the basis on which municipal rates are levied. The Property Tax says:

`An Ordinance to provide for the levy of a tax on immovable properties in lieu of the rates previously leviable ...'. Apparently the Government has forgotten the basis on which this rate was levied by the City Council and rural authorities. All they are interested in is the monies which they can collect, not the purpose for which the monies are collected.

If a house falls vacant, Mr Speaker, Sir, then it is not using municipal services -it is not using water; it is not using light; it is not using sewerage facilities. What are the facilities which the Government is providing in respect of that house on which they claim a 36 per cent tax? It is inequitable; it is scandalous. If that sort of thing is allowed to come about, Mr Speaker, Sir, there will be no building estates built in Singapore. The Government has already stated, in the building sector anyway, that it is both an enterprise between the Government and the private sector in order that adequate housing might be provided for Singapore in future years. Government hopes to build 9,000 houses next year. I do not think they will, but if they do build, it will be a very good effort. But according to plans, we need at least 15,000 to 20,000 houses per year if we want to provide for the increasing population, not to catch up, but merely to provide for the increasing population. If Government introduces legislation which is going to not only discourage but also stop private development then I cannot see how it is going to bring adequate housing accommodation to Singapore. My experience of Government is that they say one thing and they do another. They say they want to encourage housing. They say, "We want to encourage people to build houses." I ask the Minister for Finance: does he, in all seriousness, think that this omission of the refund of tax now possible under the Local Government Ordinance, whereby a person whose house is unoccupied can go to him and claim a refund, is going to help housing projects in Singapore?

Let us take a person, or a company, who has 20 acres of land and who wants to develop it. Under present conditions it is very difficult to envisage or to forecast whether all those houses built on the land would be bought or taken up by persons who want to buy houses. Let us assume that that person is a venturesome sort of developer, and he develops. If he sells as much as 50 per cent of the houses to begin with he is lucky, Mr Speaker; the rest of the 50 per cent lie vacant and idle. As soon as he receives a certificate of occupation from the relevant authority, the vacant houses will attract property tax. What happens to the developer? He faces ruination. He is paying a tax of 36 per cent on the balance of the developed property. And what is the annual value under the Property Tax? The annual value, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the rent at which it may reasonably be expected to let from year to year. So it attracts tax at once and the position is that he will have to contribute 36 per cent to the Government by way of tax until such time as he has disposed of his property. This is not the Ordinance, Mr Speaker, Sir, that is going to help bring a building boom to Singapore. If anything it is going to help kill it. The P.A.P. Government has nearly killed the building industry, and this Bill will surely help to put the industry into a coffin and place it well and truly seven feet under the ground.

Mr Byrne: Six or seven?

Mr Rajah: An extra one foot for the P.A.P. Government! So that is the position which will ensue if this Bill is passed without the provision which is now already contained in the Local Government Ordinance. Other than that, Mr Speaker, it is merely a duplication of the existing provisions in the Local Government Ordinance and the Municipal Ordinance, except that it gives the Minister a lot of powers personally, which the Local Government Ordinance did not give to the City Council as such. If the powers are used wisely by the Minister, well and good. But if the Minister does not use those powers wisely, but uses them in an oppressive sort of way, then there again it is going to be a bad thing. Mr Speaker, I am against the policy - that Ministers should be allowed wide powers in respect of which the public at large do not know what line each Minister would adopt. The provisions should be embodied in the Ordinance itself.

Now, immovable property and investments, Mr Speaker, are matters in respect of which the investing public must be satisfied that the position will be stable for a number of years. If exemptions of this nature are to be left to the individual discretion of the Minister, I am suggesting to the Minister for Finance that that is not the best way to inspire confidence in the investing public. Under the Municipal Ordinance, Mr Speaker, Sir, there were circumstances where areas which were not given all the municipal services were not liable to the complete 36 per cent rates. I hope the Minister will keep that in mind when he considers these various areas from the point of view of the varying rates which he intends to tax.

There are certain areas in Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir, which do not have a supply of electricity. There are other areas which do not have a supply of water. There are yet other areas which do not have the sewerage system installed. These are all municipal facilities in respect of which this 36 per cent is being levied by the Government. How the Minister is going to sort out these things area by area, I do not know. But I do hope that when the Minister does make these levies, he will see that he holds a balance between all the areas, and that in respect of each of those areas which does not have all the municipal facilities, an adequately reduced tax is imposed.

The only other innovation to the Property Tax Bill which was not in the Local Government Ordinance is the provision whereby industrial premises could also be exempt from the 36 per cent taxation as envisaged for the rest of the properties. I do not propose to touch upon this matter, because my colleague, the Member for Cairnhill, will deal with it. But I do wish to press upon the Minister for Finance this position: that I think this Bill, which proposes to levy a tax on unoccupied property which had previously been rented, Mr Speaker, Sir, is going to have the certain effect of not encouraging builders to build in Singapore.

3.15 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Budget speech, the Minister for Finance stated that in regard to rural areas, it was not proposed to increase the rates other than where there had been improvements, such as roads, lighting, water and electricity. But in his speech this afternoon, he has told us that at the present time there are five types of rates - 14 per cent, 18 per cent, 20 per cent, 23 per cent and 36 per cent, and it is proposed to reduce this number to three - 36 per cent, 27 per cent and 18 per cent. Therefore, by a mere manipulation of reducing five types of rates to three, those that are in the lower rates become affected. In the case of 14 per cent rate, therefore, there is already a proposed increase of 4 per cent. In the case of the 20 per cent and 23 per cent rates, there is therefore a proposed increased of 7 per cent and 4 per cent respectively. Over and above that, the Minister is proposing that where there are housing estates developed in the rural areas, these will be rated at 36 per cent. There is, therefore, an overall increase throughout all rural areas in Singapore. He has said, Sir, that in the case of vacant land in the city area, it is not proposed to reduce the present rate of 36 per cent. The 36 per cent will remain. But in the case of the other areas, although the present rates are 27 per cent and 18 per cent, it is proposed, if I heard him rightly, to reduce it to 18 per cent and 12 per cent.

In regard to industrial premises, the Minister proposes that they should be given this special inducement in order that there can be a greater inducement for the industrialisation of Singapore. Sir, new industries can come in under pioneer status, and as a result of that, there is a sort of monopoly. New industries can also claim a five-year tax holiday. These are, in a way, very material inducements to capital to come and open up factories in Singapore. But to suggest that by giving special rates in regard to property tax, there is going to be a further inducement is, I think, not quite right. What capital is more interested in is not the few extra dollars that can be saved by a reduction in the rates of the property tax, but rather in a stable political climate and industrial peace in Singapore. The Ministry of Labour and Law is doing its best to secure industrial peace, with the co-operation of the T.U.C., although reports would appear that the T.U.C. and the Minister do not see eye to eye on this matter.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, I merely wish to add to what the Member for Farrer Park has said about paying assessment on vacant houses. Even at present, when the rule is that you can claim a refund of tax on houses that are vacant, the refund is not given blindly and haphazardly. The assessor will have to satisfy himself that those houses that are vacant are not kept vacant purposely for the benefit of the owner. For instance, some owners keep their houses vacant. They purposely put up very high and impossible rents to keep them vacant in order to sell them with vacant possession so that they would get a higher price. Cases like that do not get a refund. I know that. I have seen some people who have claimed a refund, and I have seen them having to produce evidence of their attempt to get their house rented, and at a reasonable rate. So there is a precaution already existing. If it is in the Minister's mind that owners of houses could be working against the interest of the State for their own benefit, that is, by keeping houses vacant, then I would like to point out that that is not so. Precautionary steps are being taken by the assessors.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a saying that when you scratch a Tartar you will still find a Tartar. Here on the question of taxes on property, we find the S.P.A. displaying the true nature of their political sympathies.

Sir, to meet the point raised by the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Mountbatten that it is iniquitous to tax on unoccupied houses. The Member for Farrer Park says that, in the past, services were provided when houses were occupied, and when they were not occupied, municipal services were not enjoyed - services like water, light, gas and so on. Therefore, in such instances, when the house was vacant, there was no case for levying a rate. There may be a point to that if it is a matter purely of the Minister for Finance. But I would dispute his contention that the State does not provide any service whatsoever to the owners of vacant houses. For one thing, the police maintain law and order. Therefore, they safeguard the owners of such property from being plundered. But this is the point. Today we know that there is a shortage of housing. It is very difficult to get accommodation at reasonable rents. There is no excuse whatsoever for any large number of houses to go vacant for any long period of time. If that happens, it merely means that the land-owners are charging too high a rent. This being the case, it is only fair, taking the long-term view of their net income, that they should pay tax during the periods when their property is vacant.

In the event that there is a slump - one does not know, of course, what the future governments would be then, of course, the situation may arise where there is a surplus of housing and many houses are vacant, although the rents charged are quite reasonable. In that event of course, there would be a case for reconsidering the position. But in the present circumstances, where there is a shortage of housing, it is absolutely scandalous that any large numbers of houses should be vacant. If the tax on vacant houses will have the effect of inducing landlords to lower their rent, then I think we will have achieved a very desirable social objective.

As regards stopping private development, I think the Member for Farrer Park is fully aware that the large housing estates which have been built in the last few years have not been built to be let out; they have been built to be sold to individuals, very often on some instalment basis. So this question of the building estates being hard hit by this tax does not arise.

The Member for Cairnhill says that I promised during my Budget statement that there would be no increase in the rates of tax in the rural areas. I said nothing of that sort. In fact, I went to some lengths to explain that the rates in the rural areas were low in the past for historical reasons, as Singapore was then developing and there was plenty of land then. But that is not the situation today. I clearly hinted that there would be slight increases in the rates of tax in the rural areas.

As regards special treatment for industries, I think the Member for Cairnhill missed the point. It is not merely that prospective investors will get the benefit. The principal beneficiaries will be those who are already running factories in the rural areas today. They should be cushioned off from any increase in costs. Perhaps I should explain that in the rural areas, rates may have been increased anywhere between 5 possibly to 10 or 12 per cent on general properties, and we intend to exempt owners and operators of industrial establishments from these increases, so as not to increase their costs of production.

The Member for Cairnhill also misunderstood the point about tax on vacant land. In the city area the tax is 36 per cent. The tax on vacant land at 36 per cent remains there. In the rural areas the tax was formerly 9 per cent, consisting of 5 per cent improvement rate and 4 per cent education rate. Therefore, what we are doing is not to reduce the tax on vacant land in the rural areas but to increase it. I hope I have resolved satisfactorily the various misunderstandings which have arisen over this Bill.

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.-[Dr Goh Keng Swee].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

3.29 p.m.

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

The Chairman: Unless any Member wishes to speak on a particular clause, I propose to take the Bill Part by Part. Part II is clauses 3 to 5.

Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: Part III -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to come back to clause 7 again.

The Chairman: I will make a note of that.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7-

Question proposed, "That clause 7 stand part of the Bill."

3.30 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to my question on the Second reading just now, the Minister said that the exemption to be granted on industrial premises does not mean only new industrial premises, but it is also meant to cover industrial premises already in existence.

Sir, in the Budget speech, the Minister said that 1960 has been a very good year and everyone has been making money. Yet we now hear from him that capital has to get an extra inducement after making so much money, that they should not be asked to pay the same amount of Property Tax, but that in order for them to enjoy a very good year a little bit better, the Property Tax, as far as they are concerned, if they have industrial premises, will be reduced. Whereas against that, it is suggested that on dwelling houses in the rural areas the rates should be jacked up somewhat in order that, according to what the Minister has said, there can be a fairer rate of property taxation.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: That does not call for any reply, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 to 64 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Question proposed.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister for Finance said that as there is no visible sign (i.e., visible to him) of a slump at the moment in Singapore, he feels that it is only right that even those isolated properties-I think he would like to emphasize the words "isolated properties" - which cannot be let, should attract the property tax.

Mr Speaker: Order. I might remind the hon. Member that we are on the Third Reading under Standing Order 78 (1). Standing Order 78 (1) reads:

`On the third reading of a Bill amendments may be proposed to the question "That the Bill be now read a third time" similar to those which may be proposed on second reading; but the debate shall be confined to the contents of the Bill and any reasoned amendment which raises matters not included in the Bill shall be out of order.'

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was merely trying to reply to something which the Minister for Finance had said. He made the promise that if a slump were to arise, he would think of introducing a new provision to the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I can only allow the Member for Farrer Park to speak if he will specify under which clause he hopes to bring that subject in. If there is no clause, then, of course, he cannot speak.

Mr Rajah: Sir, under the Property Tax Bill, the Minister has wide powers to exempt properties from taxation. He may exempt or reduce. Sir, could I speak on that aspect of the matter? I think it is clause 7, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Can the Member for Farrer Park satisfy me that what he wishes to say is governed by clause 7?

Mr Rajah: The proviso to clause 7, Mr Speaker, Sir, which reads:

`Provided that the Minister may by order published in the Gazette direct that the tax payable in respect of properties within any area or areas shall be at such a rate or rates being less than the rate prescribed by this section for such period or periods as may seem equitable to the Minister:'.

"as may seem equitable to the Minister" - Mr Speaker, Sir, I am suggesting to you, Sir, that where properties cannot be let and the owner has honestly tried to let them, then equities do arise, and probably the Minister may then be able to proceed under that proviso.

Mr Speaker: Quite a very skilful manoeuvre! But I suppose the Member for Farrer Park can suggest that the rate should be .01 per cent or so?

Mr Rajah: Yes, Sir. Might I draw the attention of the Minister for Finance to section 110 of the Local Government Ordinance? Sir, the question of a refund even now is not a matter of right. It is a matter which the ratepayer has to satisfy the Chief Assessor in fact. The mere fact that the property is vacant does not of itself exempt it from rating. He has to satisfy the Assessor under section 110 (4). Sir, what I am suggesting to the Minister is this: that where an owner under the Local Government Ordinance could have satisfied the Assessor and thereby obtained an exemption from payment of assessment, in those circumstances, could I suggest to the Minister that equities would arise and he could then exercise his discretion?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I doubt very much whether clause 7 of this Bill empowers me to act in that way.

Mr Rajah: Yes, it does.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: It does not. In any case, it is not intended to cover such cases. So I think the Member for Farrer Park was just taking this point to ventilate his grievances about the tax on vacant houses.

Mr Rajah: Have you a vacant house?

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.