PROHIBITION ON ADVERTISEMENTS RELATING TO SMOKING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.27 p.m.

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

There is now adequate medical knowledge of the effects of nicotine on health to arouse worldwide concern over the hazards of cigarette smoking.

We in Singapore are attempting to build a healthy and rugged society. We are sparing no effort to create a clean and pollution-free environment for our people. It would be logically odd if, after all the trouble we have gone through to ensure a clean environment, we ignore the hazards of cigarette smoking and thus fail to safeguard the health of our community, particularly that of the young who form the bulk of our population.

The Minister for Health will explain later in more detail how smoking can cause harm to the health of a person. But, briefly, I was told that nicotine, which is the most important ingredient in tobacco, once left loose into a person's system stimulates and depresses the nerves.

The smoker's blood pressure goes up and his heart rate increases. Research has established that cigarette smoking is the main cause of lung cancer. A host of other diseases are also known to be caused by cigarette smoking --chronic bronchitis, peptic ulcers, high blood pressure, heart diseases and what have you. It has been statistically proved that where all other things are equal, a non-smoker enjoys a longer life-span than a smoker.

Recently, by the passing of the Prohibition of Smoking in Certain Places Bill, we have tried to "purify" cinemas, theatres and other specific public places so that the enjoyment of the many will not be marred by the few who are smokers.

We must safeguard our young population against persistent advertising by cigarette and advertising firms inducing people to smoke and to try new brands of cigarettes, often on the untrue but persuasive assumptions and implications that people must get the "taste", that cigarettes are equated with success in life, that smoking is one of the best things in life, that smoking certain brands of cigarettes is synonymous with social exclusiveness and prestige, and other equally misleading slogans. Such blandishments, if not checked in time, can induce many of our young people to take up smoking in order to belong to the in-group. The first false step often results in the young person becoming a habitual smoker.

The case against cigarette advertising, irrespective of what benefits cigarette smoking itself may bring to any particular person or groups of persons, is overwhelmingly strong. We cannot stop anyone from smoking. But we can and we must stop the use of our mass media to glorify smoking.

Members will be interested to learn that the World Health Organisation at its 23rd Assembly on 15th May, 1970, adopted a report prepared by two consultants, namely, Dr M. C. Fletcher of the United Kingdom and Dr D. Horn of the United States on Smoking and Health. The two main recommendations of the report were that cigarette advertisements should be reduced with a view to its eventual elimination, and that cigarette packets should be printed with a label warning of the dangers of cigarette smoking. The World Health Organisation has instructed its Director-General to submit the report together with its recommendations to all countries.

Some countries have already taken steps to curb advertisements on cigarettes. In Italy all advertising of tobacco products is prohibited by a law enacted in April 1962. In Britain, a similar ban was imposed on television and radio since August 1965. In the United States there is a law enforced since April this year, which requires that all cigarette packets be printed with a label warning of the danger of smoking, and from 1st January, 1971, there will be no cigarette advertisements over television and radio in the United States. Thus more and more countries are taking steps to stop the use of mass media for cigarette advertisement.

In these circumstances, we in Singapore will be shirking our social responsibility if we continue to allow television and radio, the most effective mass media in our republic, to be used by the tobacco industry to pass on messages extolling the virtues of cigarette smoking. Hence, from June this year, the Broadcasting Department has ceased signing contracts for cigarette advertisements. Beginning from 1st January next year, there will be no cigarette advertisements over our television and radio; instead, filmlets and messages against smoking will be screened and broadcast.

The cigarette industry in Singapore spent about $3.6 million on all forms of cigarette advertisements, of which television and radio got about $1.2 million last year. It is obvious that if a similar ban is not imposed on the other mass media in Singapore, the $1.2 million which was spent on television and radio will eventually find its way into the other media. This will make them more vicious and intensive in their work of persuasion and thus have the effect of cancelling out all our efforts in imposing the ban over television and radio. It is thus necessary to introduce this Bill in order to make the ban applicable to all mass media in Singapore - newspapers and magazines which are printed in Singapore, billboards, films, posters, and so on.

In this regard, there must be exemption for foreign magazines for obvious reasons. Firstly, we cannot control the editorial policy of international magazines, and, secondly, we do not want to isolate ourselves from external thoughts and literature. In any case, the circulation of such magazines is probably small and largely confined to those who are resistant to most methods of persuasion. Clause 7 (2) (a) gives exemption to this type of international newspapers and magazines which are printed or published outside Singapore. On the other hand, we are not going to grant exemption to supplements of local newspapers, even though the supplements are printed outside Singapore. I therefore propose to introduce at the Committee stage a new clause to make it absolutely clear that supplements of local newspapers are not to be exempted under clause 7 (2) (a) .

Newspapers and magazines printed in Malaysia will have to be given special treatment because our two countries lie so close to each other. I do not think publications from Malaysia should be given the same exemption which we are giving to the international magazines. We therefore propose to take administrative action to prevent Malaysian newspapers and publications from coming into Singapore if those newspapers and publications contain cigarette advertisements.

As the first ever legislation of this kind to be introduced in this part of the world, we cannot be sure of how it is going to turn out. We may have to modify and readjust later on, it is to be expected that the cigarette industry, with enormous funds at its disposal, will try to find other ways and means of marketing its products. We are therefore watching them very closely, for they may probably try to circumvent the law by putting more money in mass media originating from outside this country. If that does happen, we will have to introduce new measures to meet this new challenge. We will not hesitate to introduce new provisions to give more teeth to the law.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

6.39 p.m.

The Minister for Health (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Mr Govindasamy, Sir, I rise to give my fullest support to this Bill on the prohibition on advertisements relating to smoking, which is now being moved for the Second Reading by my colleague, the Minister for Culture.

Although this Bill concerning advertisements falls within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Health has a definite interest and a stake in its enactment, for there is now conclusive medical evidence of the serious effect of smoking in promoting the development of pulmonary and cardiac diseases, such as lung cancer and coronary thrombosis. Many scientific-studies conducted over the last 20 years have now demonstrated quite conclusively that smoking increases the morbidity and mortality from such diseases. Thus, being aware of these serious medical findings, many health authorities, institutions and agencies all over the world are becoming very concerned and are now advocating the adoption of measures by governments to discourage and minimise smoking. One of the measures strongly advocated is the ban on the advertisement and promotion of cigarettes, cigars and pipe tobacco. For example, as was mentioned by my colleague, the Minister for Culture, the 23rd World Health Assembly held in Geneva in May this year unanimously passed resolutions recommending member countries to adopt measures to discourage smoking. One of these is the reduction of advertisement and promotion of cigarettes with a view to its eventual elimination. More recently, the Royal College of Physicians in the United Kingdom has called for a total ban on all tobacco advertisements.

I would like now to give some facts and figures of these medical findings to illustrate why there is this grave concern about the ill-effects of smoking by health authorities all over the world.

First, let me refer to lung cancer -I am glad the Member for Paya Lebar is listening intently, it has now been established that the risk of dying from lung cancer is increased 15 to 30 times amongst heavy smokers as compared with non-smokers. The findings show that anyone smoking 24 cigarettes or more a day has a one-in-nine-chance of contracting lung cancer compared with a possibility of one in 284 for a non-smoker. It has also been shown that amongst smokers, the incidence of the disease is increased directly in relation to the number of cigarettes smoked. T he risk of lung cancer, on the other hand, is reduced when smokers give up smoking. It is estimated that 75 per cent or more of lung cancer cases is preventable if nobody smokes.

In Singapore, cancer is the number one cause of death and lung cancer is the commonest form of cancer encountered here. Our statistics show that the number of deaths from lung cancer has been increasing in the last 20 years and has approximately doubled every five years since 1950. Once a person contracts lung cancer, his chances of survival beyond five years are more or less nil, and it is certainly a most painful way of dying.

Studies have also shown a steady increase in mortality from bronchitis and emphysema with increasing cigarette consumption. Amongst smokers of 20 cigarettes or more a day, the mortality is 15 times that of non-smokers. The mortality from bronchitis has also been shown to decrease when smokers stop smoking. Mr Govindasamy, Sir, perhaps this will encourage those Members who smoke to stop smoking.

Every aspect of lung function is impaired by smoking. Abnormalities demonstrated include narrowing of the air passages and impairment of gas interchange in the lungs. The prevalence of cough and expectoration is closely related to the number of cigarettes smoked, and these symptoms promptly subside in those who stop smoking.

Let me now turn to ischaemic heart diseases. Medical findings show that mortality from ischaemic heart diseases is two to three times greater amongst smokers than non-smokers. This mortality is higher amongst heavy smokers and those who start smoking at an earlier age. It is lower amongst smokers who discontinue smoking than amongst those who continue the practice. This increased risk of mortality from ischaemic heart diseases is also greater amongst the younger smokers.

Smoking also aggravates the pain of peptic ulcer and delays the healing of the ulcer. The death rate from peptic ulcer is increased three to four times by smoking.

Apart from these specific diseases which I have mentioned, it has been established that smoking increases the mortality from numerous other diseases as well as increasing morbidity and disability whether this is measured by working man-days lost, by days spent ill in bed, or by days of restricted activity due to illness. In one study in the United States of America, the excess disability attributed to smoking represented 28 per cent of the days of disability.

Sir, if I have been instrumental in creating a bit of a morbid atmosphere in the House by my revelations of these medical facts and figures relating to smoking, I beg your pardon. But I feet duty bound to acquaint Members with these very serious medical findings.

Faced with this massive scientific and conclusive evidence, any government worth its salt must feel duty bound actively to discourage this hazardous habit of smoking by taking positive steps to discourage those who have not started from embarking on the practice and to encourage those who have started to stop. The first step towards this direction is to ban cigarette advertisements which form the major promotional effort in increasing cigarette smoking.

By banning advertisements on cigarettes, Government is fully aware of the fact that it is going to lose immediately a substantial portion of revenue from such advertisements on radio and television. Further, in the long term, its efforts aimed at reducing smoking will also result in the reduction of revenue from duty on tobacco. However, this is a relatively small price to pay and if it results in the reduction or prevention of increase in smoking, this will be more than offset by the savings in health and medical expenditure from the reduced morbidity and mortality. The reduction in deaths and disability amongst the economically active population will certainly have great economic benefits to the country. In one study in the United States of America, excess disability attributed to cigarette smoking in one year included 77 million working man-days lost, 88 million days of illness spent in bed and 306 million man-days of restricted activity.

Apart from economic considerations, there is the over-riding humanitarian and ethical duty on the part of the Government to protect the young, who are unwary and impressionable, from falling into the habit of smoking. Adults who have already formed the habit of smoking may have difficulty in giving it up. Thus, measures aimed at motivating adults into giving up smoking would undoubtedly be less successful than those aimed at discouraging non-smokers from embarking on the harmful habit. Most of the younger generation have not as yet embarked on the smoking habit. It is imperative that they be discouraged from starting. The Government certainly owes this to our future generation.

Advertisements on cigarette smoking are usually based on emotional appeals and the exploitation of human weaknesses. They usually seek to associate cigarette smoking with manliness, virility, prestige and social acceptance and so on. One catching advertisement that seeks to appeal to your manliness and virility, which I am sure many Members are familiar with, is the one which tells you that if you smoke the cigarette you will be in Marlboro country. Another familiar advertisement tells you that if you want to be socially acceptable and be in the in-crowd, you should smoke Dunhill. Yet another calls upon you to enjoy the coolness of a mountain stream by smoking Consulate. As such, the young and impressionable are particularly susceptible to them. Thus, it is necessary that they be prohibited if only to protect them from this incessant and insidious form of harmful propaganda.

Of course, the Government is fully conscious of the fact that merely banning cigarette advertisements by itself is not sufficient to bring about a reduction in cigarette smoking or to discourage the young from starting. Thus, other positive efforts have to be made to tell the people, particularly young people, about the ill effects of smoking and to discourage them from taking it up. The Government has decided to mount a campaign to make school children aware of the health hazards of smoking and this will be done in conjunction with the health education that will be introduced in the curriculum of schools. It would, therefore, be illogical and rather ironical if the Government were, on the one hand, to adopt positive measures to discourage smoking but, on the other, allow advertisements promoting cigarette consumption to carry on. In fact, when the law prohibiting smoking in the auditorium of cinemas came into force in October this year and before this present Bill was introduced in Parliament, there were complaints from the public which found expression in letters to the press pointing out the illogical and ironical situation where cinema patrons were not allowed to smoke while watching a show, on the one hand, and, on the other, cigarette advertisements encouraging patrons to smoke were allowed to be shown on the screen. Sir, one writer ended his letter to the press, no doubt in exaggerated terms, by stating, "To add insult to injury they [meaning the authorities] are indulging in the cruellest form of mental torture. So stop cigarette advertisements in the cinema halls before disaster strikes."

Thus, whatever the arguments pro and con its effectiveness, the banning of advertisements relating to smoking is the inevitable and logical move consistent with the Government's policy of actively discouraging smoking, thereby reducing unnecessary deaths, ill-health and suffering. As far as the Government is concerned, it has no illusions whatsoever that the campaign to discourage smoking is going to be a long and arduous one, just as our campaigns against litter, filth and pollution. We know that we will be engaged in a relentless battle against ingrained habits, human weaknesses and susceptibilities.

Finally, I would like to add a cautious note. With the passage of the Bill, the ban will be implemented. It is anticipated that attempts will be made to exploit every possible loophole to evade some of the provisions of the law. Of course, human ingenuity is always there to contend with. A close watch will, therefore, be kept by Government on attempts to circumvent the law. If it is found necessary, the provisions of the law will be reviewed regularly and changes made when necessary in order that the loss of revenue by Government from the ban will not result in monetary gain to others and, above all, to ensure that all the efforts we put in to discourage and minimise smoking will not be in vain.

6.55 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, the introduction of this Bill is, in my view, conducive to the promotion of better health and hygiene among our people. However, I do not consider it comprehensive enough. In my view, it has been introduced on a piecemeal basis. Nevertheless, it is still a progressive piece of legislation. It will cause some loss of revenue to our country, as has been pointed out by the Minister for Health, particularly revenue from advertisements over radio and on TV, and advertisements put up on our overhead bridges. This is the price we have to pay, but it is worth while. There is no doubt that this Bill will bring great benefits to our society as a whole. One of them is that our T.V, viewers will be left in peace to enjoy their programmes without the harassment and embarrassment of cigarette advertisements. This is, of course, a minor benefit. But there are major benefits. This Bill is closely related to an earlier Bill, that is, the Prohibition of Smoking in Certain Places Bill. One of the provisions in the present Bill prohibits advertisements on smoking through pamphlets, price lists, packets and other forms of publicity which aim at promoting smoking among the members of the public. This Bill shows that our Government does not endorse public encouragement of smoking amongst our citizens, particularly our young people. This Bill will be conducive to the cultivation of good habits or at least the discouragement of bad habits amongst our people, particularly the young ones. This is a Bill with good intentions.

After the implementation of this Bill, other benefits will come too. The Bill will prevent our young people from succumbing to temptation through indulgence in smoking. If there are no inducements or encouragement from cigarette advertisements, our young people will not succumb to temptations. There are Members in this House, including Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, who are smokers, but they are probably indulging in this bad habit because there was no such Bill in the past.

Secondly, this Bill will help bring about a more robust physique and better health among our people. It will definitely reduce the hazards of smoking to which smokers are exposed, that is, from the medical point of view as mentioned by the Minister for Health.

Thirdly, the Bill will also help the growth of a less polluted environment. This Bill works in close conjunction with our campaign against pollution, particularly air pollution. According to experts, smoking of cigarettes will also add to air pollution.

Sir, in spite of all I have said, there are certain loopholes in this Bill which I wish to point out. For example, there are certain loopholes in the provisions for exemption which may be open to manipulation by certain people whereby they will be able to bring home the message of smoking pleasure by some other means. I therefore invite the attention of the Minister concerned to several points.

Firstly, as regards imported publications such as Life, we must note that there are many cigarette advertisements in them. If these imported publications are distributed free to the public by cigarette dealers or tobacco companies, will it not defeat the purpose of this Bill? Has our Minister any plans to deal with such a situation?

Secondly, Sir, if our people turn on to the T.V. programmes and radio broadcasts of neighbouring countries which do not ban cigarette advertisements, our people will still be exposed to such advertisements. I wonder whether the Minister has any plans to prevent or to reduce the influence of cigarette advertisements from foreign broadcasts.

Thirdly, Sir, I would like to indicate my support if there is a campaign to educate the people against smoking. If we can start a campaign of this nature, I am sure that popular support will be forthcoming. And it is my hope that when the campaign is launched, those Members of Parliament who are smokers will take the lead and set a good example by giving up smoking.

7.03 p.m.

Inche Abdul Aziz Karim: Sir, we have heard interesting speeches by the Minister for Culture and the Minister for Health. Some intriguing points were made by the Minister for Health when he said that we should not be over concerned with the loss of revenue from duty on tobacco and cigarettes and also loss of revenue from advertisements on T.V. and over the radio to the Ministry of Culture. I must say that I support the passing of this Bill and, finally, the total elimination of cigarette smoking. But can the Minister clarify whether the Government would accept donations from cigarette manufacturers for the promotion of sports and whether the Ministry of Culture would publicity on T.V, and over the radio if, say, the Minister for Social Affairs, who heads the National Sports Promotion Board, were to receive such donations from cigarette manufacturers and whether or not publicity in the news-papers would be allowed? What is the general line of policy the Government will adopt in this regard?

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: Sir, I would like to touch on one or two points which are possible loopholes for cigarette and tobacco manufacturers to circumvent. The first point is that from the $3 million or more saved, it is pretty certain that the cigarette and tobacco companies will manufacture articles like ashtrays and cigarette lighters outside Singapore for distribution to the public. They will also make articles like diaries and pencils for free distribution and invariably most of these articles will fall into the hands of young children, particularly school children. I think this will indirectly promote the sales of cigarettes.

Another possible loophole is that there is no provision to prevent a tobacco company from encouraging people to purchase certain brands of cigarettes by offering indirect inducements like if you return 10 empty packets of a certain brand of cigarette, you wilt be entitled to certain articles. This may be a possible loophole.

In conclusion, I would like to support the passing of this Bill.

7.08 p.m.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Sir, it is very interesting to know that before this Bill is passed into law, everyone starts looking for loopholes in it to circumvent it. This is quite natural to people. All I can say is that we are watchful for any circumvention of the law. We will try to implement it in a way that is best in the interest of the country.

The Member for Sembawang has said that the provisions in the Bill are not comprehensive enough. I wonder whether he can suggest more comprehensive measures which we can take, short of prohibiting people from smoking.

As regards foreign magazines, I think we all agree that we should not cut ourselves away from the trends and information imparted by these magazines. Although it may be possible for cigarette companies to buy a few hundred thousand copies of Life magazine carrying cigarette advertisements and distribute them free to people, I do not think cigarette companies can afford to spend so much money in buying up thousands of copies of international magazines such as Life and Time for free distribution to the public. But if that does happen, we can think of ways to stop it.

As regards advertisement commercials on television coming in from Malaysia, I would say that it is something that we cannot help. We are an open city subject to influence from many forces from outside. It is not possible for us to isolate ourselves from these influences. All we can do is to strengthen the resistance of our young people in this respect so that they can differentiate between what is good and what is bad. We can also introduce filmlets, announcements and stills against smoking on T.V, and over the radio instead of commercials on cigarettes. I think this would help to cancel the effect which will come over the air from outside.

The Member for Kallang has asked whether the Government or the sports organisations are allowed to accept donations from cigarette companies such a~ Rothmans or the Singapore Tobacco Company. I have the assurance of the Minister for Social Affairs that these donations are acceptable to them. But I think we must make a difference in this. We are banning advertisements on cigarettes. But if the cigarette companies are willing to donate funds for sports organisations, I think we should have no objection because the publicity would not actually be given to cigarettes but would be given to the companies which are donating the money.

As regards ash-trays, diaries and articles which the cigarette companies may try to distribute to the people, I think these are matters which we cannot help. But as I have said, we are keeping a watch on these matters, and if they become uncontrollable, we will try to think of some means to control them.

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 N. Govindasamy in the Chair]

7.12 p.m.

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 -

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Sir, I propose that consideration of clause 4 be postponed because the amendment which I propose to move in this clause is dependent on the acceptance of the new clause which I have given notice to move.

The Chairman: Is it agreed that consideration of clause 4 be postponed till after consideration of the new clause?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Consideration of clause 4 postponed.

Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 -

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

In page 3, line 31, to leave out "any newspaper" and insert "a newspaper (other than a newspaper specified by the Minister by notification in the Gazette)".

Paragraph (a) of sub-clause (2) of' this clause gives exemption to foreign periodicals and newspapers which are published and printed outside Singapore. In other words, foreign newspapers like The Times of London or The Times of -New York and foreign magazines like The Economist, the New Statesman and -so on can be imported into Singapore with cigarette advertisements in them. I have already explained that we cannot control their editorial policy and, what is more important, we do not want to cut ourselves off, culturally and intellectually, from the rest of the world. So exemption has to be given to these foreign publications. But there are other types of publications printed outside Singapore which we do not want to exempt. They are the supplements of local newspapers. In present day practice, a local newspaper can arrange to have a supplement edited and printed outside Singapore and imported into Singapore for distribution with the newspaper. A doubt will therefore arise whether or not these supplements should qualify for exemption under this clause.

7.15 p.m.

It is hoped that this amendment which we are now putting in, together with the new clause which I am going to introduce later on, should be able to clear this doubt by drawing a distinction between the supplement of a local newspaper printed outside Singapore and an independent foreign publication. The amendment also gives powers to the Minister to single out the newspaper supplement that is not to enjoy the exemption. This should be the most effective way to end all arguments on whether or not a particular publication should be exempted.

Sir, I beg to move.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause - "Newspapers (1) Notwithstanding any other provision published of this Act, no person shall distribute outside or supply, or cause to be distributed Singapore or supplied, whether free of charge containing or otherwise any newspaper or printed advertisment matter containing any advertisement relating relating to smoking which is printed or to smoking published outside Singapore and is not to be brought into Singapore if such distributed newspaper or printed matter with newspapers published in (a) forms part of, or is supplemental Singapore to, any newspaper that is printed or published in Singapore; and (b) is supplied or distributed to any purchaser or subscriber of any newspaper that is printed or published in Singapore, whether or not the first-mentioned newspaper or printed matter is supplied or distributed at the same time as, or together with, the newspaper printed or published in Singapore. (2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and im-prisonment, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding four thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both such fine and imprisonment.".- [Mr Jek Yeun Thong].

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time."

Under clause 7 of the Bill, there is provision for exemption and paragraph (a) of sub-clause (2) of clause 7 specifically stipulates that the Bill should not apply to any cigarette advertisement contained in any newspaper (other than that specified in the Gazette) which is printed or published outside Singapore and is brought into Singapore for sale, free distribution or personal use. When this stipulation was written into the Bill, it was envisaged that magazines of a truly international character should not be debarred from being distributed in Singapore, as such foreign magazines help to enrich the intellectual life of Singapore. As I have already mentioned just now, there are magazines which are distributed as free supplements to some local newspapers but which are printed outside Singapore and which qualify for exemption. As these supplements are given away free and distributed together with local newspapers, their circulation is as big as that of the local newspapers to which they are attached. If this is not checked, the purpose of the law will be defeated because other newspapers which have no supplements to distribute will then try to produce them and have them printed outside Singapore with cigarette advertisements and brought into Singapore for distribution as their supplements.

The new clause to the Bill, when read with clause 7, makes a distinction between publications which are printed outside Singapore but are distributed free as supplements to local newspapers which are not exempted, and publications which are printed outside Singapore but are sold independently in their own rights and which are exempted.

Sir, I think this new clause is necessary and I beg to move that it be added to the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

The Chairman: As is indicated in the Order Paper Supplement, this new clause is to be inserted as clause 8. The existing clauses 8 and 9 will be renumbered 9 and 10 respectively. Further consequential amendments will be made, namely, to leave out the section reference "9" and insert "10" in page 2, line 43, and to amend the table of contents.

Clause 4 -

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

In page 2, line 42, after "3", to insert "or 8".

This is a consequential amendment and is necessary after the acceptance of the new clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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