ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (AMENDMENT) BILL

7.34 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's approval to proceed with this Bill, and I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, in my Budget speech last year I said that entertainment duty on pro-fessional boxing would be reduced from 33 per cent to 15 per cent, the cost of each ticket sold with effect from 1st January this year. I explained at that time that entertainment duty in most of the States of Malaysia was half the Singapore rate and, as a result, professional boxing had been in the dol drums since 1960 and the amount of tax collected had been negligible. This Bill seeks to remedy the situation, and it is hoped that it will give a fillip to the sport

Clause 3 (a) of the Bill seeks to delete "professional boxing" from the list of entertainments which must be charged the full rate. Clause 11 empowers the Minister, in addition to exempting any entertainment or class of entertainment from the payment of duty, to vary the duty payable in respect of any entertainment or class of entertainment subject to conditions. It is proposed to validate the reduction in entertainment duty for professional boxing mentioned in my Budget speech last year under clause 11.

Sir, time and experience show the weaknesses of any legislation, and the opportunity has been taken to make certain amendments to the Bill shown to be necessary in the light of past experience. The present law provides that open-air cinemas will pay entertainment duty at half the prescribed rates. Unfortunately the Ordinance does not contain any definition of an "open-air cinema". This has given rise to difficulties in applying the law and to a request from the proprietors of open-air cinemas for a proper definition. Clause 2 now provides an acceptable definition of "open-air cinema". Henceforth, all cinemas which are entirely exposed to the sky will come within this definition. All other cinemas will be charged the full rate.

A new subsection (4) to section 4 of the Ordinance is introduced in clause 3 of the Bill to enable the Comptroller to pay all moneys collected under the Ordinance into the State Consolidated Fund as State revenue derived from entertainment duty.

Clause 5 adds to the powers of the Comptroller the power to require proprietors of entertainment to give appropriate security against payments of entertainment duty. This will safeguard against default of payments of revenue due to the Government especially in the cases of ad hoc entertainment.

The provisions in clause 8 will enable the Comptroller to order the refund of entertainment duty overpaid provided a claim in respect thereof is made within six months of such overpayment.

Section 9 (2) of the existing Ordinance provides that if the Comptroller is of the opinion that the payment of a lump sum or any payment for a ticket includes other privileges, rights or purposes be sides admission to an entertainment or covers admission to an entertainment during any period for which the duty has not been in operation, the duty shall be charged on such proportion as repre sents the right of admission to a particular type of entertainment in respect of which entertainment duty is payable. The expression "or covers admission to an entertainment during any period for which duty has not been in operation" was required when the Ordinance was brought into force in 1952 for cases of lump sum payments for admission to entertainments before and after the in, troduction of the Ordinance. After twelve years the need for this particular provision no longer exists. So it is proposed to delete this expression from section 9 (2) of the Ordinance by clause 9.

Other minor amendments are contained in clauses 4, 6, 7, 10 and 12. These include substitution of the word "Colony" wherever it appears in the Ordinance with the word "State". The removal of restrictions on the kind of audience at which entertainment is held for entertainment purposes, and where there has been a breach of any condition attached to the certificate granting exemption from duty, provision is made for such duty to become payable on demand.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Ong Lian Teng (Bukit Panjang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Entertainments Duty (Amendment) Bill introduced by the Government has two main purposes. Firstly, it is designed to increase revenue. Secondly, it is to provide the P.A.P. and their cliques with certain facilities. According to clause 3 of this Bill, although a certain reduction is provided, the taxes on cinemas have been increased. In the past, taxes on open-air cinemas were only half of those for ordinary cinemas. The taxes then were 25 per cent for the ordinary cinemas. Whereas formerly it was 12.5 per cent, it has now been increased to 25 per cent. I think the reason may be due to the reduction in the entertainment revenue. The increase in revenue which this provision will perhaps bring, will enable the Government to use it for other purposes. But I am afraid the Government may perhaps use the money for its political activities or to buy guns or ammunition. I am not sure of this.

According to section 12, the Minister has the discretion to exempt entertainment duty on certain cinemas or to reduce their levies. In other words, it gives the Minister the same power for his own purposes. The Bill is full of the Fascist spirit. As I have said, the purpose of this Bill is for the convenience of the P.A.P. and their cliques. So that for those people who are in the same clique as the P.A.P. the Minister could exercise his discretion and exempt them from paying taxes or reduce their taxes. For others it will be strictly according to the regulations. Why should the Government not exempt concerts or stage acts for charity from entertain ment duty? I doubt the true intention of the P.A.P. I say that the Bill is full of the Fascist spirit, it has a dictatorial flavour. If you want to develop local cultural activities and promote local artistic performances, then you must encourage healthy performances. The Government should provide more facilities for them. When we were debating the vote for the National Theatre, the sum involved was about $450,000. The charge was so much. But the Government has not provided the same facilities to other civic organisations who put up cultural activities, it is, in fact, impeding the healthy development of culture. On the other hand, there are certain concerts anti cultural activities put up by certain organisations which should also be exempted. This will reduce their burden. It would also be beneficial to all concerned. I feel that the Government should not abuse this provision. The Minister should not have any bias against any civic organisation in exercising this power.

Mr Speaker: Dr Goh, in reply.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is a fair statement to make that if a person is elected to represent the people in a representative Assembly such as ours, there is some obligation on the part of the people's representative, that is, the Legislative Assemblyman, to understand what he is talking about in this Chamber. First, he must be able to understand what the Bill means. I say that the hon. Member has not shown the slightest trace of understanding. First of all, before you can pass judgment on Government's policy or Government's intention, you must know what the facts are. He says that clause 3 is intended to double the entertainment duty on open-air cinemas. It does nothing of the sort. As I have mentioned in my speech - and I have made it clear even to the meanest intelligence - this clause provides a definition of an open-air cinema. It is the open-air cinema operators themselves who have been asking Govern ment for a clear definition, because then they will know exactly how their cinemas should be constructed anti how they qualify for the reduced rates on open-air cinemas. So what the Member has said about Fascist legislation, Mr Speaker, is absolute nonsense.

Now the second point. He says that clause 11 gives me new power to exempt certain classes of entertainment from duty. He says, of course, that the purpose of this is to give P.A.P. branches or the P.A.P. Central Committee duty free entertainment. Mr Speakers Sir, when P.A.P. branches or the P.A.P. Central Committee hold concerts, they pay entertainment duty at the regular rate, in fact, I remember earlier in the year, I had to haul up one of my colleagues and ask him to get his branch to pay the tax quickly, otherwise he would be prosecuted. What sort of nonsense is this. The power to grant exemption already exists in the present Ordinance. This provision confers no new power on me in regard to exemption of taxes for certain classes of enter tainment. What is new in clause 11 is the power to vary the rate of entertainment duty. And as I have said, this is what is needed to regularise the reduced rate for professional boxing.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I plead again of the hon. Member, for heaven's sake try to make an attempt to understand the Bill under consideration.

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; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.