REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.25 p.m.

The Minister for Labour (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Hon. Members are already aware that the withdrawal of British forces from Singapore will render a large number of workers unemployed. The House has just heard a statement by the Prime Minister that the British have again notified us that they will further cut short their stay and that they will be completely out by the end of 1971. This means, from the employment angle, that some 30,000 civilian employees in the British bases together with some 10,000 women and girls employed by Services families as domestic help will lose their jobs by 1971. The great majority of these Services employees are our citizens and the loss of their jobs will most certainly bring to them a fairly long period of uncertainty and confusion; and in the interest of the workers, it is necessary for them to be prudent and conserve their money to tide them for as long as possible over the period of unemployment pending re-training for new jobs.

On becoming redundant, most of the employees will get a sizable sum of money as redundancy payments. Many of them are unaccustomed to handling substantial sums of money at any one time. The Government is primarily concerned with the citizen employees, and the basic aim of this legislation is to ensure that the money they receive is not used unwisely and injudiciously, which will make them destitutes in a short period and bring them and their families great distress. During the period of trial and tribulation, the Government is responsible for ensuring that its citizens are adequately fed, clothed and housed, and this is precisely what the Bill seeks to ensure for the workers. I must emphasise here that it is not the intention of the Government to take away the redundancy payments from the workers and use the money as revenue. I must assure the House that the Government will not and cannot make use of the money, for the redundancy payments will be paid into the Redundancy Payments Fund established by law. This Fund will be fully utilised for the full benefit of employees who become redundant to adapt and adjust themseves to a new situation. Indeed, the administration of the Fund will involve the Government in extra financial expenditure. An interest rate of 5¼ per cent per annum is guaranteed even if the returns derived from the Fund are insufficient to defray the in terest due to members of the Fund. In such a case, the deficiency is charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund.

One important feature of the Bill is that money paid into and out of the Fund will be exempt from income tax. There are also provisions to protect the rights of the workers so that their money will not be taken away by creditors or moneylenders. I would like to illustrate here, by way of an example, how the income tax exemption will bring about savings to an employee. If an employee earning a salary of $500 per month, with a wife and three children, gets a lump sum payment of, say, $20,000, he will have to pay about $3,200 in income tax, but with the exemption from income tax as provided in this Bill, this sum will be saved by such an employee.

The definition of "employer" in the Act covers practically all employers in Singapore. But it is not the intention of Government at present to apply this Act to the private and public sectors.

Briefly, the Bill provides for the establishment of a Fund to be called the Redundancy Payments Fund. Employers are required to put all redundancy payments of their workers into this Fund. Out of this Fund the redundant worker may draw up to 60 per cent of his former wages every month. A citizen can keep on drawing until all his money in the Fund is exhausted. A non-Singapore citizen, however, can only draw up to two-thirds of his re dundancy payment, leaving a balance of one-third in the Fund. The purpose of retaining this one-third of his money is that if he is unable to obtain further employment in Singapore, he will have sufficient money in the Fund for his passage back to his home country. On the other hand, if he decides to leave Singapore permanently and has no intention of returning, he can straightaway draw out all the money standing to his credit in the Fund.

For Singapore citizens there are provisions to withdraw lump sums from the Fund. If a citizen can prove that he is making use of the money for some useful projects, such as buying a house or entering into a business venture, he can have his money withdrawn for that purpose. I would like to assure the House that we will try to administer this Fund as flexibly as possible so as not to cause hardship to our citizens.

From the above, hon. Members will see that eventually every single cent will be returned to the workers plus any interest that may accrue. In addition, the workers enjoy exemption from income tax and their money is kept out of reach of their creditors and moneylenders.

Since the introduction of the Bill last month, the National Trades Union Congress and the Services' Unions have made lengthy studies of it. As a result of these studies, they have put up certain recommendations to the Government. These recommendations have been considered carefully, and I am happy to say that most of them are acceptable to the Government. I shall be moving amendments at Committee stage to cover circumstances of proven hardship as well as withdrawals from the Fund by Singapore citizens on their reaching the age of 55 as recommended by the N.T.U.C.

The other minor recommendations, such as setting up a Board to consider withdrawals and arranging for payments to be made at the nearest post office and so on, can be met by administrative action.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first time that Singapore is facing a problem of such unprecedented magnitude, and it is imperative, therefore, that in a crucial situation of this sort, urgent steps should be taken to protect the livelihood of so many of our citizens who will be affected. We have surmounted many obstacles before, and I can assure the House that the Government, with the co-operation of all concerned, will be able to overcome the difficulties that lie ahead by making plans to retain our workers for alternative gainful em ployment as speedily as possible.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.35 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in principle, the Redundancy Payments Fund Bill is a sound piece of legislation as it provides some measure of protection not only to the victims of redundancy but also to their families and dependants. The Bill can also restrain the recipients of redundancy payments from spending their money lavishly and injudiciously and in the end finding it necessary to resort to public assistance from the Social Wel fare Department. It is usual, Mr Speaker, for a person to be thrifty when his money is almost spent and to be extravagant when he has much. This very often happens and there are many such cases to serve as examples. So it is appropriate for the Government to take steps to prevent such people from falling victim to such weaknesses after having already fallen victim to retrenchment on account of redundancy.

However. Mr Speaker, there are certain clauses in the Bill which are vague and which contain unhappy features. For instance, in clause 6 (1) , the redundant employee is required to authorise his empolyer, within seven days of the relevant date, to pay the redundancy payment into the Fund. But clause 6 (5) states that if the employee does not, within three months of the relevant date, give his authorisation, the redundancy payment will automatically be paid into the Fund. Thus, clause 6 appears to have the effect of forcing the redundant employee to have his money paid into the Fund, whether he likes it or not. He has no choice whatsoever.

[Mr Lim Cheng Lock in the Chair]

3.37 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi (Kampong Kembangan): At this stage I would like to make a suggestion on this clause for the consideration of the Government. The employee should be given one of two choices: (1) either his money be paid into the Fund and thereby be entitled to the 5¼ per cent interest under clause 4 (3) as well as exemption from income tax under clause 11 (2) of the Bill; or (2) that he be permitted to collect his money from the employer on which he will have to pay income tax due under the Income Tax Ordinance, in the case of a Singapore citizen who decides on the second choice, he should be debarred from getting any form of assistance from the Government, whether in the form of free textbooks and exemption of school fees for his children, public assistance from the Social Welfare Department, etc. He will not receive such public assistance for a specific period, the length of which should be similar to that during which his credits in the Fund will last, as if his redundancy payment had been paid into the Fund. For a non-citizen, Sir, the question of assistance in any case does not arise by reason of his non-citizen ship status.

Clause 8 sets out the monthly payment to the employee, which will not exceed 60 per cent of his usual wages, in the case of a Singapore citizen, payments will continue until his credits in the Fund are exhausted. But in the case of a non-citizen, payments will be made up to two-thirds of his redundancy payment; the remaining one-third being payable to him upon the Director being satisfied that he is about to leave Singapore and will not return any more.

For an employee who earns, say, $350 a month, the proportion of his monthly payment will be $210, and with this sum he can manage to maintain his family. But what about the employee whose normal wages are, say, $200 or less per month? He will only get $120 or less a month. Is that amount sufficient for him to support his family? What about those non-citizens whose children were born in Singapore? Is it proper that, by reason of the father being a non-citizen, the children who were born in Singapore should suffer distress?

Clause 10 says that only a Singapore citizen may, if the Director is satisfied, withdraw his money from the Fund to purchase immovable property, or to enter into any trade or business, whilst a non-citizen may not do so. The fact is that there is no existing law that debars non-citizens from buying immovable property or carrying on trade or business in the Republic. If we ponder carefully, Sir, among the businessmen. investors, and entrepreneurs in the Republic, a good many of them are non-citizens. Furthermore, the Government is encouraging investors from overseas and providing incentives for them in respect of citizenship and tax reliefs.

One other pertinent matter which disturbs me is that the employee, that is to say, the Singapore citizen, is allowed to purchase immovable property or to enter into any trade or business. I fear that he may suffer in the end. It is conceivable that with the money he withdraws he can afford to buy property, but can he afford the cost of its maintenance, such as property tax, assessments, renovations, and repairs? Similarly, he can afford to use the money as capital if he embarks on any trade or business. But has he the necessary know-how and experience in matters of trade and business, bearing in mind that he has all along been a white-collar worker or an industrial worker? Thus his new venture might well end up as a misadventure instead.

Therefore, Sir, I suggest to the Government that if it wishes to safeguard the victims of British military withdrawal in line with its avowed principles of democratic socialism, then it should set up a public corporation or industry managed by and under the supervision of experts from the Economic Development Board, and offer its shares to these redundant employees as well as to the general public. This will not only help to safeguard and protect their interests, but also enhance the prosperity of Singapore after the British withdrawal.

3.43 p.m.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues (Telok Blangah): Sir, I rise in support of the Redundancy Payments Fund Bill. I quite appreciate that the economic and other difficulties confronting Singapore, consequent upon the wholesale accelerated withdrawal of the British Military Forces from the Republic, render it necessary to have a Bill such as the one before the House. To minimise such difficulties, the Singapore Government has initiated a rather unique Bill which some irresponsible elements have labelled as a gross infringement of an individual's right to receive and use any sum of money payable in respect of his termination of service. This, of course, is a deliberate distortion of the purpose of the operation of the proposed Redundancy Payments Fund Bill which seeks to reconcile and protect the in terests of the individual in relation to the wider interests of the Republic. It is quite true that the individual who comes within the scope of the proposed Bill finds that the right to receive and use any retrenchment benefits payable to him as he wishes has been curtailed to a certain extent. But, on the other hand, balanced against the curtailment is the exemption of such retrenchment benefits from taxation under the Income Tax Ordinance and protection from the harassment by moneylenders. These are two significant benefits which are given in consideration of the compulsory payment of the retrenchment benefits into the proposed Redundancy Fund and should not be overlooked in any discussion of the merits of the proposed Act. I also quite appreciate that the principal intention behind the proposed Act, as I see it, is to help prevent persons who are unemployed as a result of the situation of redundancy arising in their place of employment, from becoming a burden on the State. It is not difficult to imagine that the persons on receiving a sum of money, a sum which is much more substantial than they have ever laid their hands on, may squander away such small fortunes wastefully and rapidly, regardless of the fact that they are unemployed. A situation may result when such persons and their families, after exhausting their retrenchment benefits and have no other means of support, may join the ranks of destitute persons at present drawing meagre allowances from the Social Welfare Department. It is probably one of the reasons responsible for the decision of the Government not to include in the proposed Act a provision whereby an employee is given an option either to have his retrenchment benefits paid into the proposed Fund comprising exemption and protection, or to receive and use such benefits in any way as he wishes subject to the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance and harassment by moneylenders.

But I have two comments to make on the proposed Act. First is the inclusion of the provision where any payment made into and out of the proposed Fund is exempted from the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance. The Government in making such a provision in the proposed Act must have realised that it means a loss to the Republic of not an insignificant amount of revenue. Such exemption is extended as a means of alleviating the distress and suffering of employees who are rendered unemployed as a result of the withdrawal of the British Military Services. But I do not think it is the intention of the Government that the operation of the proposed Act should extend to the expatriate staff of commercial firms. Otherwise we would have a ridiculous situation where an expa triate employee, on expiry of his term of service, returns to his country with a not unsubstantial amount of gratuity and other payments untaxed. This is obvious from the enabling provision of clause 16 of the proposed Act where the Minister is given power to exempt an employer or a class of employers from the operation of the proposed Act.

I can, however, foresee some difficulty arising from the operation of the exemption under clause 16 where the commercial sector is concerned. Exemption of an employer having an expatriate staff by the Minister from the operation of the proposed Act means also the exemption of the local staff from the operation of the proposed Act together with the expatriate officer. But as the purpose of the proposed Act is to help Singapore citizens tide over the period of their probable unemployment, the purpose of the proposed Act seems to be defeated. To me it appears that either the scope of the Act or the provision of clause 16 is unnecessarily and unduly wide. Either the scope of the Act should be restricted to those persons directly affected by the British withdrawal from Singapore, or the exemption under clause 16 should relate not to employers but rather to an employee or a class of employees. The wide scope of the proposed Act seems unavoidable, but otherwise the proposed Act becomes a piece of legislation specifically enacted against a selected and restricted group of persons. On the other hand, exemption of employers rather than of employees appears unavoidable because the proposed Act places the onus on making payments into the proposed Fund upon the employers and not the employees. I think the problem I have raised is important and should be resolved before the proposed Act becomes operative.

My second comment is the protection afforded to any payments into or out of the proposed Fund from any legal proceedings or process in respect of a debt or any other claim as provided in clause 11 of the proposed Act. The scope of this clause appears to be very wide and I do not know whether the Government has considered all the possible consequences arising from such protection. It is undoubtedly beneficial that the recipients of any payment of the proposed Fund should be protected from any harassment from moneylenders, but the possible effect of such provision in relation to some statutory boards, such as the Housing and Development Board, the Public Utilities Board, must also be considered.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

3.50 p.m.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues (Telok Blangah): If a person who comes within the scope of the proposed Act runs up arrears on his rental of a Housing Board flat and is prepared to face the consequence of eviction, particularly in the case of non-citizens who have already made arrangements to leave the country, there seems no way for the Board to recover the arrears of rent. Where it relates to one or two persons the amount to be borne by the Housing and Development Board may be negligible, but where if a thousand odd persons are to take advantage of such provision the Housing and Development Board, not to mention other landlords, may have ---

Inche Mohd. Ariff: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Rodrigues resumed his seat.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: Is there a quorum in this House, Mr Speaker?

Notice taken that thirteen Members were not present.

Members summoned as if for a division pursuant to the Standing Order, and meeling resumed upon a quorum being then present.

Mr Speaker: We now have a quorum. Mr Rodrigues.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues: The Housing and Development Board, not to mention other landlords, may have to be prepared to write off a significant sum of money as unrecoverable debts because of the provisions of clause 16. It seems to me that this Bill requires a lot of further amendments before it can become an Act.

3.53 p.m.

Mr Govindaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill in principle, particularly the provisions of clauses 8, 9, 11 and 12. But I wonder if the Minister can clarify the following points. In the case of a Government pensionable officer who is retired before the age of 55 due to redundancy, he would normally be given a gratuity and a pension. Would such gratuity be subject to the control of this Redundancy Payments Fund Bill? Clause 10 provides that a member of the Fund who is a citizen of Singapore may withdraw the whole or part of the redundancy payment in certain circumstances. The decision to allow or not to allow this withdrawal rests entirely with the Director whose decision shall be final. This seems to be rather unfair to the redundant employee as it is a one-man decision. Will the Minister consider setting up a board specially to consider such appeals?

Clause 10 seems to provide excellent protection to the redundant employee in the use of his redundancy payment. But I wish the Minister to consider the case of a man who has worked for 20 or 30 years and now, on his redundancy at a very late stage of his working life, is to be deprived of even the small pleasures of life by being given unconditionally a small portion of his redundancy payment. No doubt I appreciate the fact that his redundancy payment will eventually be given back to him in full by way of small instalments. Will the Minister consider giving the employee immediately on his redundancy 20 per cent of his redundancy fund unconditionally?

3.55 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, right from the outset, let me congratuate the Minister for Labour and thank him for accepting almost all the recommendations proposed by the National Trades Union Congress for incorporation into the Redundancy Payments Fund Bill. When this proposed Act was made public on its First Reading, a handful of individualists and one or two opportunist politicians attempted to distort and capitalise on the plight of the Army civilian workers and tried to interpret it as a piece of anti-labour legislation. These opportunist politi cians, Sir, have never in their lives associated themselves with the aspirations of the labour movement or interested themselves in labour problems. Strangely enough, they appear to be very much alive to the apparent opportunities presented by the proposed Act for their mischievous talent for creating and fomenting industrial unrest. The reactionary attitude manifested by such characters is understandable, for they are interested only in themselves and have no concern for local problems.

Critics of this proposed Act are not aware that the majority of these 40,000 odd civilian employees do not belong 10 the higher income group. I am given to understand, Sir, that 75 per cent of these workers earn about $200 to $250 a month only, and with the prospect of an indefinite period of unemployment due to the accelerated British military withdrawal, a socialist government like the P.A.P. cannot afford to remain inactive and leave the workers to fend for themselves without formulating a constructive and comprehensive plan for the protection and safeguard of the workers' retrenchment benefits during the transitional period. Irresponsible and disloyal elements allege that the Government has plans to control or takeworkers' money to raise fact, the reverse is the truth, wanting to control or take workers' money, the Govmaking a big concession in workers' money, exempting paying income tax when the Redundancy Payments Fund Act comes into operation. Sub-clause (2) of clause 11 provides:

'Every redundancy payment paid into the Fund under section 6 of this Act and every payment out of the Fund under section 8, 9 or 10 of this Act shall be exempt from income tax under the Income Tax Ordinance.'

Along with a number of provisos designed for the protection of the workers' benefit in this Bill, the Government has made further concessions in this Bill as a result of representations made by the N.T.U.C. I am also glad to know that the Government has accepted the N.TUC.'s additional conditions for withdrawals by members of the Fund who are citizens as and when they are in need of money to meet any contingencies affecting the members themselves, their wives, children and parents. Further, any member who is a citizen of Singapore on reaching the age of 55 years will be allowed to withdraw the total amount standing to his credit in the Fund if the Director is satisfied as to the true age of the member. Sir, nothing can be more flexible than this. Unlike the previous Government, the P.A.P. has always stood by and is guided by its socialist principles. It is loath to introduce legislation to hoodwink the public for its own interest. If legislation has to be introduced which will affect the interest of the minority for the good and benefit of the majority and the State, so be it, for we cannot afford to do otherwise. In this context, Sir, I remember that in the 1959 general elections when the Singapore People's Alliance was in power, this clique deliberately introduced legislation to slash the rentals of tenants who live in Singapore Improvement Trust flats with a view to gaining popularity and winning the general elections. But the people knew that they were not sincere and honest. Therefore, no amount of bene ficial legislation which is of a temporary measure will help. Therefore, one can safely infer that this Government, which is elected to power by universal suffrage, would not deliberately legislate laws aimed at bringing hardship to the civilian employees of the British Military Services.

Sir, I support the amendments and the proposed Redundancy Payments Fund Act, because I am of the opinion that the wider interest of the Republic necessitates such an Act and that the proposed Act confers some undoubted benefits on the persons affected in return for some flexible restrictions on their rights.

4.04 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Bill before the House.

It is the aim of this Bill to protect the civilian employees in the Armed Forces of the British Government so that the redundancy payments to be given to them will be protected by law. The purpose of this Bill is to look after the livelihood of the employees themselves as well as their families and dependants and to tide them over the difficulties with which they will be faced.

The timely introduction of this Bill fully shows that the Government has foresight, advanced planning and a strong sense of responsibility. As a good Government, we are not only responsible to the employees themselves but also to their dependants. Therefore, the Government must assist and look after these civilian employees of the Armed Forces and see that their redundancy payments are gainfully utilised in business or will tide them over their difficulties for the time being. This is indeed a very wise measure.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the N.T.U.C., which represents the democratic labour movement, has already indicated its full support for this Bill. Indeed, the unions of the civilian employees in the Army and Navy have also come out in its support. They are of the view that the Bill is a clear indication of the Government's intention to assist and look after the long-term interest of the workers as well as their families.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are certain provisions in this Bill which are particularly of benefit to the civilian employees. First, the redundancy payments paid into the Fund will earn interest at the rate of 5¼ per cent per annum. Second, such payments are exempted from income tax so that they are intact at all times. Third, they are out of the reach of creditors and moneylenders. Furthermore, the administration of this Bill when it becomes law will result in expenditure borne solely by the Government without a single cent of the money paid into the Fund being touched.

Mr Speaker, Sir, certain politicians in Singapore have come out with adverse criticisms against this Bill to the effect that it is intended to exploit the workers. This is indeed mala fide propaganda because it is unfounded. The people who make this vicious accusation are unable to assist the workers. Their idea is to create confusion and unrest and they hope to fish in troubled waters. These vicious politicians must be made to understand that their attempt will not succeed because the workers are now more politically conscious and fully understand their own circumstances and the situation in our country. The workers are fully aware that the Government is planning ahead for them and also for the interest of the nation. So they understand the importance of cooperation with the Government. It is only when they co-operate with the Government that we will be able to tide over this difficult period. As a matter of fact, the accelerated British withdrawal will not only cause difficulties in employment but also in defence. But this is a challenge to the will and guts of the people. I believe that if the people stand united together, we will not be afraid to face any difficulties and that finally we will be triumphant.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support this Bill.

4.10 p.m.

Mr Selvadurai: Mr Speaker, Sir, although I would like to support the purport of this Bill as being an exceptional measure under exceptional circumstances, there are one or two unhappy features about some clauses of this Bill which I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister.

First, I would like to refer to clause 7 which deals with the protection against action given to the Director and persons authorised by him. In sub-clause (3) the only circumstances under which protection is not granted to the Director is in the event of fraud where a person suffering damage or loss can recover whatever loss he has suffered from the Director by way of possible legal proceedings. Sir, I do not see why the same thing cannot be done with respect to negligent payments made by the Director or persons authorised by him because if payments are so made and the Director is protected by sub-clause (2) as he is, I do not see why a member of the Fund should really have to face the expense of taking action in court for the purpose of recovering the money from the person to whom it is wrongfully paid. I think this is an unfair burden to place on members of the Fund. The person who is negligent in making wrong payments should meet the expenses.

The other point which I would like to refer to is the question of withdrawing the funds under clauses 9 and 10. Clause 9 refers to the circumstances under which non-citizens can withdraw their funds, and clause 10 refers to the circumstances under which citizens can withdraw their funds. I really do not see the reason behind the two sets of circumstances - one for citizens and one for non-citizens - before funds can be withdrawn. There are quite a number of non-citizens in Singapore who are non-citizens because of technical reasons ---

The Prime Minister: Come off it!

Mr Selvadurai: It is possible that this class of citizens would also be faced with hardship and they might want to withdraw the money that they have in the Fund.

An hon. Member: They may take all the money and go.

Mr Selvadurai: That could be investigated. I shall be grateful if the Minister will amplify these points.

4.13 p.m.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I must thank Members of this House for expressing their support of this Bill. I would like to reply briefly to the points raised by them. The Member for Kampong Kernbangan and the Member for Bukit Panjang have raised the point about the different treatment accorded to citizens and non-citizens. But I must inform the House that this Bill is specially designed to protect the interest of the citizens and that we do not assume any responsibility for the non-citizens. I think it is very necessary to have the two types of withdrawal, because in the case of the non-citizen he can withdraw all his money from the Fund if and when he decides to leave the country forever. In fact, we are not interested in his money at all. He can take away all his money if he wants to. It will be better for us if he does so. I regret that we have to take this measure, but there is no other way in which we can deal with the matter.

The Member for Kampong Kernbangan has also brought up the argument that 60 per cent of the redundant employee's wages may not be enough for him to live on. He may want more - 70 per cent, 90 per cent or even 100 per cent. It may be argued that 60 per cent may not be enough. But I think the worker who has lost his job should try his very best to live within his means. It is better that he should draw out less so that his money in the Fund can last longer. If he draws out more, his money will last him for a very short time and after that the Social Welfare Department will have to take over. That will be very unwise.

The Member has also touched upon the possibility of investing this Fund in commercial concerns and industries in the country, so that it can draw higher returns and may also be used to set up corporations so as to create jobs for the workers. I think he has forgotten that the Fund is subject to withdrawals, and it is very difficult to say for certain how much money we will have in the Fund at any one time. So I think Members will agree that for a fluctuating fund of this nature, it is rather difficult to invest it in any fixed ventures. Furthermore, in any shares in any business concerns, whilst there is the probability of large profits, there is also the probability of great losses. It is unwise to put the workers' money in investments of a speculative nature. It is rather early to say how the Director of the Fund will invest the money in order to earn enough income to pay the 5¼ per cent interest guaranteed to the workers. But it is safe to say that he will only invest this money in Government bonds, Treasury Bills and other very safe bonds.

The Member for Telok Blangah wants to know whether this Bill will cover executive personnel in the commercial sector, because he does not want them to enjoy this exemption from income tax. I can assure him that the intention of the Government is to offer this privilege only to workers in the British military bases, and we do not have any intention at the present moment to extend it to other sectors.

The Member also wants to know what happens if a member of the Fund runs out of money to pay his rent to the Housing Board, or to pay his water and electricity bill to the Public Utilities Board. How is the Housing Board or the Public Utilities Board going to recover arrears? If such a case arises, and if the member is a citizen, I think he can apply under clause 10 of this Bill to withdraw his money in order to pay these debts. If he is a non-citizen, when he leaves the country there is still one-third of his money left in the Fund. I presume this money will be sufficient to pay for his passage as well as any arrears owing to the Housing Board and the Public Utilities Board.

The Member for Anson wants to know whether gratuities paid to Government employees would also enjoy this privilege of exemption from income tax. I say that this is not the case because we have no intention to extend this privilege to Government employees.

The Member also wants to set up a board to consider withdrawals. This can be done by administrative action. It is not necessary to include this provision in the Bill. There is already provision that the Minister has the power to regulate the nature of the withdrawals. The Member also wants 20 per cent of the redundancy payment to be withdrawn unconditionally so that the worker can have a little enjoyment. He has not said what this enjoyment is, but it may be a trip round the world or something like that. That is exactly why this Bill has been introduced, to guard against such injudicious spending. The worker has already lost his job, and it is important that he should be careful in spending his money. He should not spend more than he can afford.

The point raised by the Member for Bukit Panjang deserves consideration. If it is necessary, we will introduce amendments on a subsequent occasion.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Jek Yeun Thong].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

4.23 p.m.

The Chairman: In clause 1 there is a clerical amendment to be made - in page 1, line 4, "1967" should read "1968".

Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 -

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 4, line 27, after "(1) ", to insert "or (5) ".

This is a formal amendment to remove any ambiguity that might arise.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 -

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 5, lines 29 and 30, to leave out "under subsection (1) of this section".

This is also another formal amendment to remove any ambiguity that might arise.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 -

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 6, to leave out lines 5 to 11 inclusive and insert -

"be prescribed -

(a) that he has the intention -

(i) of purchasing immovable property, whether for his own use or occupation or otherwise;

(ii) of entering into any trade, business, profession or vocation; or

(iii) of entering into such other feasible activity as the Director may approve; or

(b) that he is in need of money to meet any circumstances of hardship affecting him, his spouse, his children or parents,".

The intention of this amendment is, in the light of the recommendation of the N.T.U.C., to make provision for a member of the Fund, who is a Singapore citizen and in need of money to meet any circumstances of hardship affecting him, his wife, children or parents, to draw such amount of money as the Director considers adequate to relieve such hardship.

Clause 10 (1) (b) has been drafted in as wide a manner as possible to take in the sort of contingencies that the N.T.U.C. have listed in their statement.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 6, lines 15 and 16, to leave out ", (b) or (c) of this subsection" and insert "of this subsection or to alleviate any hardship under paragraph (b) of this subsection".

This amendment is consequential to the previous amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

4.30 p.m.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 6, after line 24, to insert -

"(4) When a member of the Fund who is a citizen of Singapore attains the age of fifty-five years he may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, apply in writing to the Director to withdraw the amount standing to his credit in the Fund and the Director, upon being satisfied as to the age of that member, shall thereupon pay out of the Fund the total amount standing to his credit in the Fund.".

If this amendment is accepted, a member of the Fund who is a citizen of Singapore may draw the whole of his redundancy payment and any interest thereupon on reaching the age of 55 years. This concession only applies to members of the Fund who are Singapore citizens. This amendment is to meet one of the N.T.U.C.'s recommendations.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 -

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, before I go any further in moving amendments to this clause, may I seek your permission under Standing Order 32 to move a minor drafting amendment in page 8, line 15?

The Chairman: I give my consent. Do I have the general assent of Members for this amendment to be moved without notice?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 8, line 15, to leave out "If any person" and insert "Any person who".

This is an oversight and the error is regretted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I now move,

In page 8, after line 35, to insert -

"(3) No prosecution shall be instituted under subsection (2) of this section except by, or with the written consent of, the Attorney-General.".

The new subsection is added to clause 15 as an additional safeguard so that there will be no indiscriminate prosecutions under the Bill. All prosecutions under this law will have to be sanctioned by the Attorney-General.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.