FACTORIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.10 p.m.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Hon. Members will recall that the House in February 1973 passed the Bill which was enacted as the Factories Act 1973. Introduced by the Government then as a result of its concern over the trend of the increasing number of industrial accidents, the Act sought to improve safety, health and welfare provisions as well as to ensure a more stringent observance of safety standards.

Sir, in the five years since the House dealt with the matter, the industrial safety situation has improved. It is gratifying to note that hon. Members have also been as vocal as they are concerned with the well-being of our workers as evidenced by the lively discussions in this House in the Budget debates over the years. Some of their pertinent observations and suggestions which the Minister found to be feasible have also been incorporated in this Amendment Bill.

Based on the criteria used by the American National Standards Institute, the accident frequency and severity rates in 1973 were 6.8 accidents per million man-hours worked and 1,282 man-days lost per million man-hours worked. In 1977, the accident frequency and severity rates recorded a decline to 5.3 and 501 respectively. In absolute numbers, however, there were in 1973, 2,910 industrial accidents involving 73 fatalities as compared to 4,575 accidents with 57 fatalities in 1977.

Nevertheless, the number of industrial accidents remains high. It is a matter of continuing concern on the part of the Government. The economic cost of these accidents is large. With manpower as our only dependable resource, we cannot afford to see our workers maimed or killed. More importantly, the social cost is high and cannot be measured by plain statistics. There is the pain, misery and anguish of the worker and his family in every accident. We must avoid this human suffering especially as they are caused by accidents which often need not have happened at all.

The safety and health situation in industrial establishments should be further improved. The administration of the Factories Act since its enactment in 1973 shows that the law needs to be further strengthened to meet with the increasing sophistication in our technological advancement and it is for this purpose that this Amendment Bill is before the House. The proposed Amendments seek to provide for safer working conditions as well as better enforcement of the Factories Act to ensure that its provisions are complied with.

The proposed amendments to the Factories Act are described in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill. I should like, however, to highlight some of the more salient features.

Sir, our experience shows that the knowledge in safety standards in the use and operation of machinery is found to be wanting. Accident statistics in the past two years have shown that there were more than 2,000 accidents involving the use of machinery. Analysis made on the causes of these accidents revealed a combination of several factors - lack of awareness on the part of the workers on the danger associated with the machinery they handle, poor maintenance of machinery and the absence of adequate training to provide the operators with a thorough knowledge of the machines' peculiarities or potential hazards.

To meet with this situation, a number of amendments have been proposed. Clause 7 of the Bill which amends section 24 proVides for the proper maintenance of machinery and plant installed in factories. This new provision will minimise the danger of injury to which the workers are exposed or to more nasty consequences as a result of machinery or plant breaking down.

Clause 8 of the Bill which amends section 28 of the principal Act requires notices to be put up instructing workers in the safe operation of a machine or process which is likely to cause bodily injury. With the introduction of this new provision, neither the worker, the safety personnel or supervisor, nor the employer can plead ignorance, a common tactic frequently employed when accidents occur. It will facilitate more effective and speedier inspection by the enforcement officers.

Clause 20 of the Bill seeks to amend section 61 of the principal Act by empowering the Minister to make regulations to prescribe the qualifications and training of persons who are employed at any machine or plant. This is an important provision, particularly for construction worksites where accidents involving mobile cranes, excavators and bulldozers are caused mainly by operators who are not sufficiently trained in the handling of such heavy mobile machinery and plant.

Another area where similar upgrading of safety measures is most expedient is the shipbuilding and repairing industry, where working in confined spaces and in explosive or inflammable environment is common. Hon. Members are well aware that deficiency of oxygen is a hazard ever-present in confined spaces, particularly where a number of workers are deployed in one confined space, and if the oxygen depletion process is quickened it may result in multiple fatalities. While the existing Act requires a responsible person to test and certify that a confined space is safe before allowing workers to work in it, the tester is not required to keep records of such tests. This has resulted in poor documentation of such records which frustrates safety management and impedes enforcement. To rectify this defect, clause 11 is introduced to amend section 34 requiring records of such tests to be kept. Further, clause 12 of the Bill which amends section 35 of the Act introduces a new requirement for plants, tanks or vessels which have previously contained explosives or inflammable substances to be inspected before hot work is allowed to be carried out. Stringent adherence to this procedure by Safety Personnel in the factories will certainly ensure the elimination of the presence of explosive or inflammable substances which can cause fire and explosions.

The Bill also includes amendments providing for better observance of safety standards. Under the present Act, the maximum penalty for infringements of safety provisions which are likely to cause death or bodily injury to any person and other offences for which no expressed penalty has been provided for is a $2,000 fine or an imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both. The seriousness of infringements of this nature need not be further emphasised. The present penalties are in our view not sufficiently adequate to deter persons from committing such infringements. Clause 26, therefore, seeks to amend section 82 of the principal Act by providing for enhanced penalties of a maximum fine of $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.

As can be seen from the statistics provided to hon. Members in this and previous Sittings, minor accidents do not seem to have abated. They cannot obviously be treated lightly and appropriate action must be taken. However, it is a time-consuming exercise to bring every case before the court. The preparation for legal proceedings has in the past immobilised a good number of my officers who should be on the field undertaking enforcement work. Hence, it is proposed in clause 29 to make provision to empower the Chief Inspector of Factories to compound minor offences under the Act by accepting from the person reasonably suspected of committing an offence a sum of money not exceeding $200.

Existing provisions in the principal Act in relation to accident investigation have been found to be inadequate. This hampers proper investigation. Two amendments are therefore introduced to give the Factory Inspectorate the necessary power to overcome this handicap. Clause 15 of the Bill intends to vest in the Chief Inspector additional powers to prohibit any alteration or addition to the site of any fatal accident or to any machinery, equipment, plant or articles which may have contributed to the cause of the fatal accident, without his prior consent. Similar powers have been given to the Chief Inspector of Factories under the present Act for dangerous occurrence. This clause extends the power to cover fatal accidents. This additional power will prevent wilful tampering of evidence which can frustrate investigations.

Clause 24 of the Bill grants additional powers to the Inspector of Factories to seize any article found in the factory for purposes of conducting an investigation or inquiry. It also provides the Inspectors with the power to require any person found in the factory to produce his identity card so as to establish his identity.

These powers are not excessive but are necessary and reasonable if proper investigations are to be conducted. Hitherto, the investigating officer has to depend on the police to effect any seizure of articles. Further, he is frequently helpless in trying to establish the identities of persons whom he believes to be able to help in the investigation.

With the endorsement of the House on this Bill, I trust that our workers will enjoy a safer and healthier working environment.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed. 3.22 p.m.

Mr Ivan Baptist (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is opportune to read for a Second time the Factories (Amendment) Bill which seeks to amend the Factories Act, 1973 (No. 6 of 1973), so soon after the debate on the Budget in Committee of Supply on the Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1978, to 31st March, 1979, on Head M, Ministry of Labour, which took place in this House on Tuesday, 15th March, 1978. It was then, Sir, that a total estimated expenditure of $10,337,650 was voted. With the estimated sum of $1,811,460 for FY 78, industrial safety and health is to be improved and the hope is that accident frequency and severity rates will be reduced appreciably during the course of FY 78. A promise to that effect was made in Parliament during the Budget debate. So it is expected that the safety and health of workers at workplaces would be adequately safeguarded. The Hon. Minister, however, believes that this cannot be achieved satisfactorily without more stringent legislation and greater enforcement powers. So, the Factories (Amendment) Bill is being read in the House for the Second time.

I would like, Sir, with your kind indulgence to make a number of pertinent comments on the Bill. Clause 4 of the Bill attempts to ensure a more healthy and comfortable work environment. However, the fundamental principle of positive approach in health and safety legislation is strangely ignored by the proposed section 14(2). Whilst the proposed section 14(1) states:

"Effective and suitable provision shall be made for securing and maintaining by the circulation of fresh air in each workplace, adequate ventilation of the workplace and for rendering harmless, so far as practicable, all such fumes, dust and other impurities generated in the course of any process or work carried out in the factory as may be injurious to health". The proposed section 14(2) nullifies it by saying:

"The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any workplace where it is impracticable to make provision for adequate ventilation and where breathing apparatus is used by persons working in the workplace".

Sir, "so far as practicable" in the proposed section 14(1) surely covers quite clearly the intention of the Bill and any disputes arising out of the practicability of implementing the legislative requirements of section 14(1) can be determined by the competent authority or, if necessary, an arbiter. But proposing section 14(2), which I quoted a moment ago, is not only redundant and negative but also gives occupiers of factories leeway in a most serious matter which could result in accidents, sickness or death of workers.

In keeping with the redundancy and negation of the proposed section 14(2) and its mollification of occupiers of factories, clause 5(a), the proposed section 22(2), takes the similar stand of the proposed section 14(2) I mentioned. Note, Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed section 22(1) safeguards the workers in:

"Every dangerous pan of any machinery, other than prime movers and transmission machinery, shall be securely fenced unless it is in such a position or of such construction as to be safe to every person employed or working on the premises as it would be if securely fenced." But the proposed section 22(2) says that:

"Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply where the dangerous part of any machinery is made safe for persons employed or working on the premises by other equally effective means."

Why is the Hon. Minister giving such leeway to occupiers of factories? Lives and limbs of workers are involved and such leeway could be disastrous.

This consistency is maintained with the inclusion, in clause 16 of the Bill of the proposed section 54(5), and I quote:

"The requirements of subsections (1) and (3) of this section shall not apply to any workplace where it is impracticable to comply with such requirements and where breathing apparatus is used by a person working thereat."

The positive nature of section 54(1) and (3) of the principal Act can be well imagined, Sir, and I will not go into the details by quoting them.

I fail to understand why the Hon. Minister, on the one hand, in wanting a tighter law is, on the other hand, encouraging laxity.

Let me now turn my attention to clauses 8 and 17 of the Bill on the proposed sections 28 (2) and 54A (2). These deal with notices which have to be "in languages understood by the persons employed". To illustrate my point while dealing with these clauses, Sir, let me give a hypothetical case of a factory employing at one point of time all workers who understand English. As such, the notices required by law would be in English. If the situation should change, as change it would in Singapore, with the labour turnover problems we are experiencing, and some workers who understand Malay are recruited, an additional notice would have to be put up in Malay. The same would happen if a worker understood only Chinese or Tamil. The situation would be more complex if the recruitment exercise yielded Malay, Chinese and Indian workers who only could read their respective languages.

It takes time for notices to be fashioned and during that time one cannot send 'accidents' on a vacation. Accidents do not happen, they are caused and here the cause could be a notice that was not understood. Is it not a fact that in Singapore there are four official languages and many workers can read at least one of them and some even two? So I fail to follow why a detail such as this was completely ignored in the drafting of the Bill especially when both proposed sections deal with health and safety measures and if ignored, misunderstood or not understood could lead to death, and permanent or temporary disablement. So would it not be prudent for these notices to be in the four official languages of Singapore?

Again, Sir, in clause 17, the proposed section 54A (4) states:

"Labels easily understood by persons employed in the factory shall be affixed to containers of poisonous substances to warn them of the hazards involved." I will not say more on this, lest I be guilty of repeating myself.

Sir, I do not believe it is wise to include clause 29 of the Bill which amends the principal Act by including section 88A which states:

"The Chief Inspector may compound any offence under this Act by accepting from the person reasonably suspected of committing such offence a sum of money not exceeding two hundred dollars." For the entrepreneur a composition of that quantum would amount to a licence to infringe. Whilst not casting slurs at the Factory Inspectorate, how can we be sure that serious infringements which, when taken to court, could penalise offenders with not only heavy fines but also imprisonment, will not end up being offered a composition of $200 or even less? I feel that this proposed section should not become part of the law.

Sir, I spoke at length during the Budget debate on the fundamental rights of workers to know what they are working with and their potential hazards. Sir, I will not repeat myself, but suffice it to say that workers must be provided with information, instruction, training and supervision by their employers to ensure health and safety at work.

Sir, I would therefore propose to the Hon. Minister that the following section be included in the principal Act as "General duties of employers to their employees". It should read this way:

(1) It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.

(2) The matters to which that duty extends shall include in particular the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees.

Whilst section 28 of the principal Act provides for training and adequate supervision, it does not sufficiently cover the fundamental rights of workers. In addition, the provision of information is inadequately covered. Part IV, Health (General Provisions), Part VI, Welfare (General Provisions) and Part VII Health, Safety and Welfare (Special Provisions and Regulations) in the principal Act have no provisions whatsoever bearing even a trace of my proposal.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure that the objectives of the Hon. Minister are akin to mine. The safety and health of our workers cannot and will not be sacrificed. With modern technology, more efficient and powerful machines are being built, more lethal substances are also being introduced to hasten processes and fashion aids to better and more comfortable living. But in the wake of it all, the untold human suffering in loss of life and mangled and bloody limbs is a high price to pay. Fortunately all this trauma can be avoided in sound legislation and active enforcement and cooperation by employers and workers alike in ensuring a safe and healthy work environment. After all, is not accident prevention simply the control of men, machines and work methods? The problem arises when the control is inefficient or ineffective. So, as in all matters but especially so in accident prevention, exceptional care must be given to the details especially in the drafting of legislation.

Just another point, Mr Speaker, Sir, in clause 10, on page 5 of the Bill:

'Section 33 of the principal Act is hereby amended -

"(1) All places of work, floors, steps, stairs, passages, gangways and means of access shall -".' It is strange that the term "places of work" is being used when in an amendment to section 54 of the principal Act (clause 16), "workroom" and "working room" have been substituted in each case by "workplace". I would therefore recommend to the Minister to substitute "workplaces" for "places of work".

Mr Hwang Soo Jin (Jalan Kayu): Mr Speaker, Sir, we must thank the Member for Potong Pasir for treating us to a lecture on the importance of industrial safety. While looking at the Explanatory Statement attached to the Bill, I have my doubts as to whether it is really the intention of the Ministry to go ahead and enforce the various measures proposed with a view to improving the standard of industrial safety. According to the note, it is stated that "this Bill will not involve Government in any extra financial expenditure". If I remember correctly, looking at the staffing strength of the Factory Inspectorate as contained in the Estimates for the year 1978, if anything, it shows a reduction in the number of inspectors. With all these additional measures, how is the Ministry going to raise the standards? There is therefore no point in talking about safety in principle when they do not have the intention to enforce it.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank both Members for their observations. May I first deal with the Member for Potong Pasir. He has made some relevant observations, but I should like to enlighten him as to the spirit and reasons behind the amendments. The Member for Potong Pasir has raised doubts, in clauses 4 and 5, as to whether the Ministry intends to exempt certain employers from their liability by providing exemption in another clause if other means of safety apparatus are available in places where it is not possible to implement the regulations. In our working experience we have discovered that in certain workplaces the working environment is peculiar - in that ventilation is not at all possible. So if we were to insist upon the observance of section 14 of the principal Act, most employers would be committing a technical offence. In the absence of the provisions as stipulated in the principal Act, they have instituted equally effective safeguards such as the provision of breathing apparatus, masks and so on, which are equally effective in preventing accidents. This amendment is to give the Ministry the same amount of leeway which the employers now enjoy, and it enables us to be more enlightened in our enforcement. If an employer can provide equally effective safeguards to the workers when the original provisions cannot be complied with due to a peculiar situation, then we should appreciate the employer's problem and not impede the management of the factories, so long as the welfare and health of the workers are safeguarded. It is in this spirit that clauses 4 and 5 have been included in the Bill.

May I touch lightly on clause 5(b)? The principal Act provides for the safeguards regarding moving parts - flywheels and other moving machinery where protection is needed. With technological advances and new devices being discovered in the protection of workers, some of the devices are built into certain machinery, such as the electronic eye where the machine will automatically shut down in case of a sudden irregularity, or that a worker will not be able to activate or operate a particular machine unless he uses both hands. These devices will eliminate the possibility of negligence or carelessness by putting one hand in the wrong place while the other hand is activating the machine. Such devices are available. Many of them have been incorporated in the machinery. Without the amendment as provided for in the Bill now, these effective alternative safety devices will be illegal. We ought to give these devices a legal standing where such effective safety devices have been incorporated in the machinery. With that explanation, I hope the Member will understand the spirit behind these two particular clauses.

On the question of putting up notices in the four official languages, I do not think we should legislate the obvious. The four official languages in Singapore are well known. They are Chinese, Malay, Tamil and English. I do not think we need to specify in the Bill the language to be used because the employer should understand it. If an employer employs Tamil workers and he puts up a notice in Chinese it is a clear case of ignorance on his part. We have sufficient powers under the law to compel an employer to do what is right and proper. We do not need to stipulate exactly what language should be used. Be it Italian or Russian.

The new section 88A in clause 29 of the Bill gives the Chief Inspector power to compound offences. Sir, this amendment is not intended to give the Chief Inspector of Factories unlimited powers to compound any offence. Serious offences will be taken to court and the court will be asked to decide on the matter. But in our working experience we have found that it is highly impossible for us to bring each and every case to the court. The offence may be a minor one involving technical details and the fine may come to a very small sum. But the Member for Jalan Kayu will perhaps appreciate that, with the manpower that we have, if we were to involve our inspectors, most of whom are engineers or technical officers, in the preparation of court cases and attending court in addition to their time spent on investigations, interviewing witnesses and so on and, in cases of fatal accidents, having to attend the Coroner's inquiry, a lot of their time will be committed in these proceedings. We, therefore, feel that it is necessary to include this amendment to give the Chief Inspector powers to compound minor offences. The Member for Potong Pasir may have doubts as to the intelligent application of this clause because the Chief Inspector might abuse his powers and compound each and every offence even though it is of a serious nature. I assure the Member that this is not the intention. It is certainly not the spirit of this amendment. We shall see to it through administrative means that each case will be accorded a fair treatment, whether it should be a court case or it should be compounded. In the absence of this power to compound, we will either have to let the employer off because of a lack of opportunity to bring the case to court through a shortage of staff or we will have to bring every case to court. Both situations are not acceptable. I think we have found a good solution by providing this power to compound.

The Member has also raised certain general principles and I am grateful for his observations. It is good to have general principles. But these alone are not enough. If there are certain aspects which are feasible and practicable, and we think we can deal with them more effectively, they should be spelt out clearly in the Bill. Members are aware that the Minister has the power to make regulations and if there is no material change in the spirit of the law, regulations can be made under section 61 of the Act to regulate certain processes or even to prescribe certain standards. I suppose that covers the point raised.

The Member raised the question about work rooms and work places. Sir, in fact, I intend to seek your consent and the general assent of Members to make an amendment to clause 16 when we come to the Committee stage. Members will note that clause 10 says:

"All places of work, floors, steps, stairs, passages, gangways and means of access shall -". If we follow the description given, such as floors, steps, stairs, etc., then these descriptions are necessary to define workplaces. In the construction industry particularly, it is very difficult to define the place of work. Because on the way to a workplace on a certain floor in a construction site, very often we find that the access to the place of work is so hazardous due to poor housekeeping. Therefore, we have to specify what we mean by "place of work". Hence clause 10 which is an amendment to section 33 of the Act.

Sir, I have the privilege of discussing with the Member for Jalan Kayu outside the House very frequently and have benefited from his wisdom. He raised a pertinent point. He is concerned about whether the Ministry is effective in its enforcement work. Particularly, he observed that in the budget provision this year there is a reduction in the number of staff in the Factory Inspectorate. Sir, there is a reduction of only one staff. It is due to the abolition of a supernumerary post. As I stated in the Budget debate, since 1975 there has been an increase in staff from 36 to 55. I also stated that the Inspectorate has been able to conduct its activities quite well although it had to stretch its staff to the limit. Of course, I would welcome more staff for the Factory Inspectorate. But we must have effective legislation to back them up. Hence this amendment Bill to provide more effective enforcement of the various provisions and to give the staff reasonable powers to enable them to carry out their work. I assure the House that the reduction of one staff would not impair or impede the enforcement work of the Inspectorate. Certainly, Sir, this Bill will not involve the Government in extra financial expenditure. It is only meant to tighten up and streamline certain provisions with a few amendments to provide better coverage.

Sir, I hope that my explanation will satisfy the Members.

Mr Ivan Baptist: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not believe that I can be satisfied. The way I look at it is that the Bill has got a number of very good points. I do not think we should stop it from going through the Second and Third Readings. But I believe there are certain details that need to be examined, and I am wondering if the Hon. Senior Parliamentary Secretary will assure me and the House that we re-examine the Bill, have a look at all these weak points and develop them further into strong points so that our workers could enjoy a healthy and a safe working environment. If he could give me that assurance, then most certainly, Mr Speaker, Sir, with the good points in the Bill, it should be approved.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, I am most happy to give the assurance. In fact, I wish to inform the Member that we are constantly monitoring the situation. Hon. Members may wish to know that the suggestions, observations and other utterances in every sitting of Parliament are referred to the departments concerned to take note of. The suggestions that are found feasible, as I said, have been incorporated in this amendment Bill. I do not think we would deviate from our usual diligence on this matter.

Mr Ivan Baptist: Sir, could the Hon. Senior Parliamentary Secretary also ensure that he forwards it to the NTUC so that we could look at it and maybe make what little contribution we can.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, we are aware of the "little contribution" from the NTUC. We will seek that little contribution in future.

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 Fong Sip Chee]

Bill considered in the Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

3.52 p.m.

Clauses 1 to 15 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 -

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members to move an amendment to this clause?

The Chairman: I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be moved?

Hon. Members indicated assent

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 12, after line 11, to insert -

'(b) by deleting the word "workroom" appearing in

the first line of subsection (3) thereof and

substituting therefor the word "workplace";'.

Sir, the intention of this amendment is to streamline the two amendments as listed in clause 16 (a) and (b). It appears to be a minor drafting oversight.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: Consequential amendments will have to be made in page 12 to reletter paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) as paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) respectively. This will be done.

Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 17 to 24 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 -

Question, "That clause 25 stand part of the Bill", put and negatived

Clause 25 accordingly disagreed to.

Clauses 26 to 30 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause -

The Chairman: The Senior Parliamentary Secretary intends to introduce a new clause, of which he has given inadequate notice. Again, under the provisions of Standing Order 33, the new clause is subject to the Speaker's consent and the general assent of the Members present. I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the new clause be introduced?

Hon. Members indicated assent "Repeal Section 63 of the principal Act is and re- hereby repealed and the following enactment substituted therefor:- of section 63. "Power 63. (1) An inspector may, at to take any time after informing the samples. occupier or, if the occupier is not readily available, a foreman or other respon-sible person in the factory, take for analysis sufficient samples of any substance used or intended to be used in a factory, or any substance required for the purposes of an investiga-tion or inquiry under this Act or which is a substance in respect of which he suspects a contravention of the provisions of this Act, or which in his opinion is likely or may prove on analysis to be likely to cause bodily injury to the persons employed. (2) The occupier or the foreman or other responsible person may, at the time when a sample is taken under this section, and on providing the necessary appliances, require the inspector to divide the sample into three parts, to mark and seal or fasten up each part in such manner as its nature permits, and - (a) to deliver one part to the occupier, or the foreman or other responsible person; (b) to retain one part for future comparison; and (c) to submit one part to a Government Chemist for analysis. (3) A certificate purporting to be a certificate by the Government Chemist as to the result of an analysis of a sample under this section shall in any proceedings under this Act be admissible as evidence of the matters stated therein, but either party may require the person by whom the analysis was made to be called as a witness. (4) It shall not be lawful for any person, except in so far as is necessary for the purposes of a prosecution for an offence under this Act, to publish or disclose to any person the results of an analysis made under this section, and if any person acts in contravention of this subsection, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars.".". - [Mr Fong Sip Chee].

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time."

Sir, earlier on, Members negatived clause 25. Under this new clause, the provisions of clause 25 as negatived earlier, have been included in this new clause with slight modifications. Sir, the intention is to rectify a drafting oversight so as to streamline the legislation.

Mr Ivan Baptist: Sir, I am a little worried. Why do we have so many drafting oversights? Could the Hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary tell us what went wrong?

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, I am not competent to comment on the competence of the Attorney-General's Chambers.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

The Chairman: This new clause is to be inserted immediately after clause 20. This will be done. Existing clauses 21 to 24 will be renumbered as clauses 22 to 25 respectively.

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