ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY ON PUBLIC PERFORMANCES OF PROFESSIONAL BOXING

Mr David Marshall asked the Minister for Finance (a) what was the amount of entertainments duty collected on public performances of professional boxing (i) in 1960; and (ii) in the first nine months of 1961; and (b) whether consideration will be given to the removal or reduction of entertainments duty on public performances of professional boxing.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, there are in all three questions to question No. 43, and my answers are

(i) None.

(ii) None.

(iii) No.

Mr David Marshall: Since he could not possibly reduce 0 below 0 to reduce the tax on professional boxing, and since it would perhaps resuscitate a useful art, would the Minister not reconsider his decision?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I am very doubtful whether any change in the rates of entertainment tax would have the effect of resuscitating professional boxing. For instance, in the Federation the rates are rather less than half of those in Singapore, and there is no evidence whatsoever that they have any effect on reviving the sport of professional boxing.

It seems to me that this is very much a matter of taste. Fashions come and go. Years ago it was professional boxing; now it is running around with go-karts or what-have-you. I think it is rather independent of rates of tax on entertainment.

Mr David Marshall: I am sorry, Sir. My question seems to be misunderstood. Perhaps I have not been clear. We are getting no revenue and have been getting no revenue, so the reduction of the tax could not affect our revenue in any fashion, and it could reasonably be anticipated that it might assist. In the circumstances, would the Minister not give it sympathetic consideration? Since we cannot lose, we might win.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I think the Member for Anson has a point there, mathematically speaking, and I will reconsider it.