INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 5.15 p.m.

The Minister for Finance (Mr Hon Sui Sen): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, 1981, is to give legislative authority to the income tax concessions announced in the 1981 Budget Statement. Opportunity is taken at the same time to include amendments to improve and extend some of the provisions in the Income Tax Act.

One of the concessions announced in the 1981 Budget Statement was the reduction in personal income tax. In respect of tax payable for the Year of Assessment 1981, a tax rebate of 10% of total tax liability was granted and in respect of tax payable from Year of Assessment 1982, marginal tax rates will be reduced. The tax rebate is effected through a remission of tax under subsection (2) of section 92 of the Act whilst the reduction in marginal rates required an amendment to the Act. Clause 13 of the Bill amends the Second Schedule to the Act to revise the rates according to those announced in the Budget Statement.

The other concessions are increased earned income relief for handicapped persons and separate assessment for investment incomes of married women. Clause 10 amends section 39 of the Act to increase the earned income relief for a handicapped person from $1,000 to $2,000. Clause 12 makes the appropriate amendment to section 51 to allow the unearned income of a married woman to be chargeable to tax in her own name if the Comptroller is satisfied that her unearned income is attributable to assets and investments acquired by her from her earned income in the past. These concessions will take effect from Year of Assessment 1982.

I now move on to the other amendments which are made to improve existing legislation. Clause 14 amends the Fifth Schedule to the Act to permit enhanced child relief for specially qualified married women to be granted to women who have more than three children before 1st August, 1973, with effect from Year of Assessment 1981. This was previously limited to qualified married women who have three children or less on or after 1st August, 1973.

Accelerated depreciation allowance is currently granted to plant and machinery of industrial enterprises, anti-pollution equipment, computers and plant and machinery for research and development. This is now extended to construction machinery and equipment to encourage greater mechanization in the construction industry. Clause 8 of the Bill makes the necessary amendment to section 19A of the Act to provide for this. The concession will be applicable to construction equipment acquired during the period 1st January, 1981, to 31st December, 1985.

Dividends declared out of income of Asian Currency Units and income from insurance and reinsurance of offshore risks, which are subject to tax at the concessionary rate of 10%, are exempt from tax in the hands of the shareholder under section 13B. This section is now amended to include dividends declared out of off-shore income from gold transactions which are also taxed at the concessionary 10% rate. Clause 3 makes this amendment which takes effect from the Year of Assessment 1981.

Industrial building allowances will be extended to the first two resort hotels to be built on Sentosa as an incentive for the development of resort hotels on the island. Clauses 6 and 7 amend sections 16 and 18 of the Act to provide for an initial depreciation allowance of 20% and an annual allowance of 2% of the capital expenditure incurred in the construction of the hotels.

The energy conservation standard set by Building Regulations in 1979 is a maximum Overall Thermal Transfer Value of 45 watts per square metre for airconditioned commercial buildings. To encourage owners of existing airconditioned commercial buildings to take the necessary measures to comply with this standard, approved expenditure on energy conservation incurred by owners of such buildings will be tax deductible against business profits or rental income. Clause 4 incorporates a new section 14G in the Bill to provide for this.

Management fees paid by investment holding companies to their investment managers are presently not tax deductible expenses. However, to aid the development of fund management activities, 50% of the management fees paid by an approved investment company which includes a unit trust will, from Year of Assessment 1982, be tax deductible. A new section 14F provides for such deduction.

Statutory bodies under the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act are exempt from tax on their income. This, in effect, means that dividends received from subsidiary companies by the statutory bodies are also exempt from tax. Clause 2 amends paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section 13 to give the Minister for Finance the discretion to decide whether or not to refund the tax deducted from such dividends. This shall have effect from Year of Assessment 1982. Clause 2 also makes a minor amendment to allow charitable organizations to be exempt from tax only if they expend not less than 80% of their income on charitable activities within Singapore, unless the Comptroller otherwise permits. The amendment will apply from Year of Assessment 1983.

Clause 9 amends section 26 of the Act to allow insurance companies engaged primarily in the business of export credit insurance to adopt such underwriting accounting method as the Comptroller may approve for tax purposes.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Yeo Choo Kok (Delta): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Minister for Finance has said, this Amendment Bill is to legislate for certain tax relief measures announced in the Budget statement last year. There is nothing to criticize. This Bill will certainly receive the support of those who will benefit from it.

The Minister mentioned that opportunity is also being taken to improve upon certain other provisions in the existing Income Tax Act, But I believe many people will regret that the Bill does not include certain amendments, which are necessary and overdue, to some provisions of the Act. I believe many people will agree with my view that the following points need improvement.

First, the amount for personal reliefs is too low. For several years it has never been increased. Even though Backbenchers have repeatedly spoken for the taxpayers over the past decade or more, the personal relief has been a trite talking point in almost every Parliamentary debate. Yet it is a realistic issue of immediate concern. One needs money for everything. With continual increases in the cost of living, personal expenditure also keeps on increasing. Therefore, personal reliefs should also be increased proportionately and should not remain unchanged.

Second, CPF contribution is a form of compulsory saving. The employee's contribution has been increasing up to 22%, while CPF interest has remained the lowest in the market, at 61/2%. However, in tax relief, the maximum is $5,000 which also includes insurance premiums paid. All these are not to the advantage of the wage earner. Third, the tax relief of $750 for providing for a parent is really too low. During the debate on the then Budget Statement on 16th March, 1972 I requested the Government to grant certain tax reliefs to taxpayers who looked after their parents, in order to encourage filial piety. The following year, 1973 in the course of the Budget debate the Minister for Finance agreed to a relief of $300 in this respect. This was raised to $750 in the Budget Statement of 1974. Today, eight years hence, it remains at $750. This is a bit unrealistic. Since then prices have gone up, while inflation goes on unabated. Reliefs for providing for parents, wife and children should therefore also be increased. In the past, in order to encourage people to beautify. and maintain their garden, we had allowed tax relief in this respect to be increased from $100 to $300. We have even more reason now to increase the tax relief for providing for parents, as this would positively encourage the keeping of the three-generation family under one roof.

If amendments are made to take in the few points mentioned above, more people will benefit and consequently our Income Tax Act will be a more realistic one.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join my good Friend, the hon. Member for Delta, in speaking on this Bill, in particular to ask for further income tax reliefs. Income tax legislation is of utmost importance to everyone in Singapore and each year, around Budget time, everyone looks forward to matters concerning income tax to see how generous the Hon. Minister would be.

Sir, in formulating these policies not just pertaining to income tax but on all aspects of the Budget, the Minister has always taken into consideration the views of Members as well as the views expressed by members of the public. Indeed it is gratifying to note that the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry, who has been charged with the duty of preparing the Budget this year, has taken great pains to meet and to consult various groups of people in the preparation of the Budget. Sir, it is this style of government - being alive and responsive to views and opinions expressed by others, whether it be in this House or outside this House - that has kept our Government in close touch with reality and to changing circumstances that affect the lives and the destinies of Singaporeans. Likewise, Backbenchers have been very vocal in this House in expressing matters that affect our citizens, especially those that affect the pockets of our citizens, and indeed income tax is no exception.

Sir, my Friend, the Member for Delta, is correct in saying that requests for personal reliefs and earned income reliefs have been talking points in many a Parliamentary debate. A check through Hansard reveals that in the last two years alone this matter was raised nine times. In 1980, the Members for Whampoa, Bedok, Changi and Khe Bong raised this matter. In 1981 the hon. Members for Pasir Panjang, Boon Lay, Henderson, Changi and Punggol also raised this matter. No doubt, if I were to go further back into Hansard, I would not be surprised to discover that practically everyone on the Backbench has raised this matter sometime or other. Similarly, we have on many occasions asked for the limit on the tax relief for CPF contributions and life insurance premiums to be raised. In 1977 I was one of those who spoke on this matter, and subsequently the Member for Punggol also spoke. In 1979 the ceiling was raised to $5,000. I think this is a good illustration that the Government does not turn a deaf ear to the pleas of Members of Parliament.

Sir, I do not intend to go further into the reasons for asking for more reliefs here, as the hon. Member for Delta has already covered that subject. But I think it would not be inappropriate to ask that perhaps, to simplify matters, CPF contributions and life insurance premiums should be fully granted relief from taxation.

As I have said, requests for further income tax reliefs of various types are topics which have been raised before countless numbers of times in this House. Undoubtedly, I do not expect the Hon. Minister to say "Yes". I think he will say "No" again today. But he can have the assurance that as long as he keeps saying "No", so will the Backbenchers continue to ask him the same question year after year. I have no doubt that in the coming Budget debate some of us will do so. But I am optimistic that, with repetition, the Hon. Minister will concede.

If I may recall the memory of hon. Members. We had on many occasions asked for CPF contributions to be used for the purchase of private homes. But the Minister, or rather the former Minister for Labour, had insisted that this could not be done. However, with much persistence from the Backbenchers, we can see that the policy has been changed. May I then end on a note that I hope the Hon. Minister for Finance listens as well as did his other Ministerial colleagues to the Backbenchers.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, actually the point that I wish to raise has already been adequately covered by my two colleagues. But there is another point that I would like to raise, and that is the application for relief for aged parents. As the Income Tax Act now stands, any applicant who wishes to apply for tax relief for aged parents must have his aged parents living with him, otherwise such relief will not be permitted. I would like to make a request here, that if the taxpayer is able to show proof that he is, in fact, supporting his aged parents, he should be allowed to make his claim for such relief.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Minister has indicated in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, this Bill seeks to implement proposals that were mentioned in the Budget Statement for changes in the income tax structure. I do not suppose that anything that I say here or anything that other Members may say here will impede the passage of this Bill tonight. But speak I must on behalf of those whose cries have not been heard. We have had references from hon. Members here about the appeals over the past years falling on deaf ears and I propose tonight to lend my support to those who have been making these appeals to the Minister with no success at all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it must perhaps seem ungracious on my part that I should cavil at the generous impulses of the Minister and his Ministry when they propose to make hand-outs of about $81 million from the revenue. Mr Speaker, Sir, the handouts that are being proposed, as the Minister said in his Budget Statement last year, would, in the main, benefit those who already have enough money in their pocket, whilst denying any relief to people who have very little money in their pocket to meet the rising cost of living, the medical care and various other payments that one has to make today.

Clause 12 enlarges the separate assessment that was introduced in 1962 for married women. It was a good measure to introduce separate assessment for married women, restricting it to the earned income of these wives. It was a step in the right direction as it encouraged wives who were able to contribute to the economy of the country to go out and work. So I say that was a good measure. But clause 12 now seeks to enlarge it, and it seeks to provide for separate assessment of not only just the earned income of the married women but also of the unearned income of these married women.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it does not need very much thinking to realize that the people who have money to invest are those who, because of their educational qualifications or professional qualifications, which they owe to their parents who were able to give them education or to send them to the universities, are able to command high salaries in the market. So it is these ladies who will be able to invest their spare cash from the earned income on investments, and this relief is primarily directed at them. It is this minority with the spare cash from the earned employment who are being enabled to get a remission of $3 million from the revenue.

One hardly supposes that a working class wife, a woman married to a man who is in receipt of an income of $500 or $600 a month, will have any money at all at the end of the month to invest. The main reason why these wives go out to work is to supplement the income of their husbands, not because they wish to invest their earnings. They find that the salaries or wages of their husbands are hardly adequate to maintain the family together. So they go out to work. Very little at all will be available for any investment. So this clause is designed to benefit a minority. This was admitted by the Minister for Trade and Industry when he introduced the last Budget Statement.

What I would like to know is this. Has there been a clamour for this relief? Have these ladies, who have spare cash from their earned income, made a deputation to the Minister urging this relief? Has it been shown that unless this relief is given to this minority of our taxpayers, the economy of the country will suffer, and therefore these taxpayers should be enabled to invest their spare cash? I really do not know why it has suddenly been decided that they should be given relief when there are more crying needs. I shall be coming to these crying needs later. But may I deal with the other clause, that is, clause 13 of the Bill which proposes to change the rate of income tax for the year of assessment 1982.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister, in introducing the Budget last year, spoke, in glowing terms, on the reliefs that taxpayers would benefit by the changes in the rates. However, he spoke in percentages. I am not going to speak on percentages. I am going to give, with your permission, specific examples of how these new rates are going to work. Take the case of a man earning a salary of $600, supporting a wife and two children, which is the model family for Singapore, a family of four. If he has a salary of $600 a month, he will find himself paying $1.04 more in tax under the new rates. This is because, as the Minister has said, there is no change for those in the lowest bracket. But last year there was a 10% rebate given for all taxpayers and unless that 10% rebate is repeated this year - and I hardly think it will be as a result of all these changes - this man will be paying $1.04 more in tax. Let us not laugh at this small figure of $1.04. It does still represent an increase of $1.04 that this man will be paying under the new rates. So for him there is no benefit.

Now let us take the case of a man who is earning a salary of $750 per month. I am assuming in both cases that they have no other income. This man, Mr Speaker, Sir, will find himself paying an additional tax of $6.80 under the new rates. Again, it is because the tax payable remains the same for 1981 and 1982, But because there was a 10% rebate in 1981 and unless there is a similar rebate given for 1982, he will lose that and he will find himself paying an additional $6.80 by way of tax. So you have here two cases, persons drawing salaries of $600 and $750 whose taxes are being increased.

Then we come to the case of a man earning a salary of $1,000 per month with no other income. He gets a saving of $48. Well, it is still a saving, Mr Speaker, and I would not cavil at that. But I would like to compare it with the savings that will result to our taxpayers at the other end of the scale, Mr Speaker, i.e. those who are paying tax at the highest brackets. Again, I have these figures worked out for me by an accountant, and this is what I find. A businessman who has a chargeable income of $700,000 will get a saving of $45,165.

Then we move up to the highest bracket, those with chargeable incomes of more than $750,000. Take the case of a man who has a chargeable income of, say, $1 million, and I am sure there must be quite a few in our society today in Singapore who can claim to have a chargeable income of $1 million. And what is the saving he gets? He gets a saving of $76,175, very substantial savings. Again, I ask: has there been a cry or has there been a clamour for changes to the rates from these people who are paying tax presently at 55%? Has the Minister been told that unless he brings down the rate of tax that they are paying they are going to flee the country to other tax havens? If the Minister has been told this, we would like to hear it. I myself have not heard any of these men protesting about the high rates of tax. What we do know, what we have heard - and in this I speak in support of the Members of this House who have referred to it - is over the years the cry from our less well-to-do members of our society, those who find it difficult to make ends meet in this high cost of living that we are facing today, cries from them for reliefs from the burden of income tax. They have asked for their personal reliefs to be increased. They have asked for the relief given for the support of aged parents to be increased.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is commonly assumed that the personal reliefs have remained what they were when income tax was first introduced into this country. That is a fallacy, Mr Speaker. I propose to show that there has been over the years an erosion into the personal reliefs that have been granted to our citizens.

Sir, income tax was first introduced into our country in 1947. I remember at that time there was then some protest about income tax being introduced into the country but nevertheless it became law. And the personal reliefs that were provided by this legislation, Ordinance 39 of 1947, were these, Mr Speaker. The taxpayer got a personal relief of $3,000 and if he maintained a wife in the preceding year, he was given a deduction of $2,000 for the wife. So the two of them got a personal relief of $5,000. This was way back in 1947. I do not have to remind Members of this House of what the purchasing power of money was in those days as compared to these days. But here we have it that in 1947 the government and this was the colonial government, not our people's government, thought it right and proper that a husband and wife should have a relief of $5,000 before they began to pay tax.

This continued, Mr Speaker, right up to 1960. But before 1960 arrived, there was a change of government. In 1959, we took over the government of this place and a party which proclaimed itself to be a socialist party, to be a party for the workers, determined to do something for the poor, to uplift the workers, came to power on the 3rd of June 1959. And as a socialist government they also affirmed their belief in the redistribution of wealth, so that wealth was more equitably shared among the citizens. But as events will show, this government which came to power in 1959, professedly a socialist government, somehow got its direction of redistribution of wealth wrong. Instead of increasing the flow of wealth to the poor and to the needy, it decreased the flow of wealth to them. In 1960, by Ordinance 77 of 1960 (and this took effect from the 1st of January 1961) the personal relief was reduced from $3,000 to $2,000 for a taxpayer. Of course, it went on to provide an additional relief by way of one-fifth of the earned income of this taxpayer. But simple arithmetic will show, Mr Speaker, that for a man who earned $400 and less and in those days, even in 1960, $300 - $400 was quite a good salary for many of our workers, a man who earned $300 - $400 a month had his personal relief reduced from $3,000 to below $3,000 in spite of the one4ifth earned income that was given in place of the reduction of $1,000. That is not all.

In addition to having his personal relief reduced, he found that the relief, or the deduction that he was allowed, for maintaining his wife, was reduced from $2,000 to $1,000. So the net result, Mr Speaker, is: in 1947 a husband and wife had a $5,000 personal relief. In 1960, with the socialist government in power, this personal relief was reduced to $3,000 with the addition of the one-fifth earned income relief for the taxpayer.

So, Mr Speaker, it is a fallacy to suppose that it was a case of the reliefs not being increased. In fact, there has been a decrease. I do not want to go on and refer to the changes that were made for the children because there have been continuous reductions made as regards relief for children as well. But that is perhaps in line with the government's policy to limit families. I do not want to go into them. I merely like to confine myself at the moment, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the personal reliefs.

We do not have to go very far to see how other countries treat their poor, the working class. You only have to go across the Causeway, Mr Speaker. What do you find there? You find that there the taxpayer (i am talking about the man, the husband) gets a personal relief of $5,000 and his wife gets a relief of $2,000, making in all $7,000 in addition to the reliefs given to the children. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I know why there is this big disparity between our country and our neighbouring country? One would have thought that, except perhaps for the big cities, the cost of living in Malaysia is probably lower than the cost of living in Singapore. So if you were to relate your tax reliefs to the cost of living, the logical thing would be for Singapore citizens to have greater reliefs because of the higher cost of living. I would like to know from the Minister why is it thought sufficient and adequate that Singapore citizens should only have a personal relief (a husband and wife) of $3,000 when across the causeway they get $7,000.

I do not see, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will permit me, the reason for punishing wives who do not go out to work. If wives do go out to work, of course, they are separately assessed on their income. But if a wife does not go out to work, then her personal relief is reduced from $2,000 to $1,000. It was $2,000 in 1960. I would like to know why is it thought necessary that a non-working wife should be punished, a wife who elects to stay at home, who perhaps thinks that it is more important for her to look after her own children than to go and earn extra money. Why should she be punished?.

Sir, I would ask the Minister to consider these appeals that I have made to him. Even if it does not find any fruit tonight, I hope that the Minister, with the financial year coming to an end very soon, would now withdraw these clauses and allow them to be introduced in the Budget debate for the next financial year. But even if he does not do that, I can only hope that what I have said here, and what other Members have said, will result in some changes being made, in the next Budget statement, to the personal reliefs that are being granted at the moment to our tax-payers.

There is one other relief that I wish to talk about, Mr Speaker, and that is the allowance that has been made for the support of aged parents. As has been pointed out, it was at one time $300, then it was increased to $750. $750, Mr Speaker, may sound not a small sum, or is it? But when one breaks it down, it works out to $2 per day. Does the Hon. Minister really think that you can clothe your parent, you can feed him, you can provide for his medical needs and care, you can provide a shelter over his head when he is unemployed, at $2 per day? So there are other areas where the need is far, far greater than the needs of these well-to-do-working wives who, because of their wealth and position, because their parents were able to educate them, have now got surplus cash and would like to earn more on the surplus cash itself. There are far greater needs, and I would appeal to the Minister that he should lend his ear to hearing the cries of those who find life a burden because of the rising cost of living and the other expenses that are now heaped on them in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, as I have said, I do not like to look at a gift horse in the mouth and cavil at the generosity of the Minister and his Ministry in making these hand-outs to this minority of our taxpayers. But, as I have said, in duty bound to the majority of our taxpayers, I must vote against these two measures. I do not like to play Scrooge to these people who, it is proposed, should benefit from these changes in the tax structure.

I would welcome this if, at the same time, Mr Speaker, some relief is given to the poor, the working class, who need the money and need it very badly. Why does this Government always look after the wealthy, the privileged, and the well-to-do? I ask, Mr Speaker, don't other members of our society need looking after? There is, according to the Minister, a loss of revenue of $81 million if these changes are brought about. I can think of far better use for the $81 million than putting it back into the pockets of those who have already got enough money. Something can be done to reduce the medical charges for people who cannot afford to pay; something can be done to reduce the rents of HDB flats for those who do not have enough money; something can be done to help them with their transport fares. Let us try and help people who need help. That should be the first principle of a socialist government, Mr Speaker, Sir.

So I would say that I oppose this Bill, not in its entirety, but I certainly oppose the Bill as regards clauses 12 and 13. I have an amendment to one clause but I shall take it later.

Mr Hon Sui Sen: Sir, I have heard very carefully the remarks of Members on this Bill. I know they represent the sentiments of not only the Members but also the people in the constituencies who speak to them about the personal allowances and other allowances they have under the Income Tax Act. While I would like to be sympathetic, this is not the place nor the time to debate last year's Budget statement. On this Friday's Budget statement, Members will have perhaps enough time to debate these matters. Some of the changes which may be made may make some of the comments quite irrelevant.

I will only say that the philosophy of the Government in income tax legislation has been made quite clear in Budget statements over the years - that we hope to extend the tax base, that we hope as many citizens as possible will pay a certain amount of tax; those in the lower brackets pay very little indeed, but it gives them a sense of making a contribution towards the cost of the rights and privileges that they enjoy. For example, they get low cost housing and so on. Someone has to pay for that. It is not only just the rich people who can be taxed. We would like every one to make a contribution even if they do not pay the whole cost of the rights and privileges they enjoy. In the same way when we reduce income tax and are generous with $81 million of taxpayers' money, we are hoping not so much to lose revenue as to gain revenue. We expect that this will provide a greater incentive for people to work hard. We hope that we will not have taxation so high as to cause a disincentive to people from working hard.

These objectives are in all the Budget statements in the last few years, and I commend to the Member for Anson that perhaps, instead of going back to 1947 to colonial days, he should just read the Budget statements for the last few years. This is all I propose to say now.

As I said, on Friday there will be the Budget statement and after that there will be the budget debates during which time I assume some of these points will be made again. Some of them may be trite, as one of the Members has said, but I think the Treasury still listens to everything that is said here. If we cannot always grant allowances that they want, it is not because we are unsympathetic but because there is a fixed philosophy and a fixed policy for our Income Tax legislation.

The Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): Mr Speaker, just to seek an explanation from the Member for Anson. In his speech he made it out that Singapore workers are suffering under this regime, that they are victimised and they are being punished. He showers the neighbouring country with praises, showing the disparity in treatment that the workers get in other countries as against-

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ong, would you like to give way?

Mr Ong Teng Cheong resumed his seat,

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, I was not aware that I was talking about the treatment of our workers. I was talking about the income tax reliefs. I was not talking about punishment of our workers. I shall have quite a bit to say about it when we debate the Estimates for the Ministry of Labour. But at the moment I am only talking about the personal reliefs. I think the Minister is perhaps out of order when he says that I have been talking about our workers and their punishments and their conditions. I shall have quite a lot to say about it when the time comes.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, the Member for Anson has said a lot just now. I do not intend to repeat, but can he reconcile what he said earlier in his statement that many workers from our neighbouring country prefer to come and work here, instead of vice versa? Can he reconcile that? Can he explain why?

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 Hon Sui Sen].

Bill considered in Committee. 6.15 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 -

Mr Hon Sui Son: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 1, line 5, to leave out "and 11" and insert ", 11 and 14".

Sir, the purpose of this amendment is to provide that under clause 14 the concessions will be made in 1981 instead of 1982.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Hon Sui Sen: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 1, line 7, to leave out", 13 and 14" and insert "and 13".

The reason for this is that this is consequential on the amendment which has just been made.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: The citation year will be altered from "1981" to "1982".

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 9 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 -

The Chairman: There are two amendments* standing in the name of the hon. Member for Anson. I am informed that recommendation of the President is required in respect of these two amendments. Mr Hon, do the amendments have the recommendation of the President?

• The amendments, standing in the name of Mr Jeyaretnam, read as follows: (1) In page 6, after line 35, to insert - "(a) by deleting the word "two" in paragrah (a) of subsection (1) and substituting the word "three".". Note: To re-letter existing paragraph (a) as paragraph (b). (2) In page 7: to leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert - "(c) by deleting the words "equal to the amount by which the sum of one thousand dollars exceeds the amount of earned income chargeable in the wife's own name" in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) and substituting the words "of two thousand dollars".".

Mr Hon Sui Sen: No, Sir.

The Chairman: The amendments cannot be proceeded with.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 -

Question put, "That clause 12 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Division, Sir.

The Chairman: We will take a division then.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 1; Abstentions, 1; Absent, 21. Ayes Noes Abbas Abu Amin Jeyaretnam, J.B. Ahmad Mattar Ang Kok Peng Barker, E.W. Chai Chong Yii Chan Chee Seng Chandra Das, S. Chau Sik Ting Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Chin Harn Tong Ch'ng Jit Koon Chua Sian Chin Goh Chee Wee Goh Chok Tong Ho Kah Loong Abstentions Ho See Beng Hon Sui Sen Yeoh Ghim Seng Hwang Soo Jin Jabbar, M.K.A. Jayakumar, S. Koh Lip Lin Lai Tha Chai Lau Ping Sum Lau Teik Soon Lee Chiaw Meng Lee Khoon Choy Lee Yiok Seng Lee Yock Suan Liew Kok Pun Lim Boon Heng Absent Lim Chee Onn Ng Kah Ting A. Rahim Ishak Ong Pang Boon Chen, Bernard Ong Teng Cheong Chiang Hai Ding Othman bin Haron Eusofe Chor Yeok Eng Ow Chin Hock Conceicao, J.F. Rohan bin Kamis Dhanabalan, S. Saidi Haji Shariff Fong Sip Chee Seah Mui Kok Goh Keng Swee Sia Khoon Seong Howe Yoon Chong Tan Cheng Bock Jek Yeun Thong Tan Keng Yam, Tony Lee Kuan Yew Tan Soo Khoon Mansor Haji Sukaimi Tay Eng Soon Phua Bah Lee Teh Cheang Wan Rajaratnam, S. Teo Chong Tee Selvadurai, P. Wan Hussin Zoohri Sia Kah Hui Wan Soon Bee Sidek bin Saniff Wong Kwei Cheong Tan, Augustine H.H. Yeo Choo Kok Tang See Chim Yeo Ning Hong Toh Chin Chye Yeo Toon Chia Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene

Clause 12 accordingly agreed to stand part of the Bill. 6.30 p.m.

Clause 13 -

Question put, "That clause 13 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Division, Sir.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 1 ; Abstentions, 1; Absent, 21. Ayes Noes Abbas Abu Amin Jeyaretnam, J.B. Ahmad Mattar Ang Kok Peng Barker, E.W. Chai Chong Yii Chan Chee Seng Chandra Das, S. Chau Sik Ting Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Chin Harn Tong Ch'ng Jit Koon Chua Sian Chin Goh Chee Wee Goh Chok Tong Ho Kah Leong Abstentions Ho See Beng Hon Sui Sen Yeoh Ghim Seng Hwang Soo Jin Jabbar, M.K.A. Jayakumar, S. Koh Lip Lin Lai Tha Chai Lau Ping Sum Lau Teik Soon Lee Chiaw Meng Lee Khoon Choy Lee Yiok Seng Lee Yock Suan Liew Kok Pun Lim Boon Heng Absent Lim Chee Onn Ng Kah Ting A. Rahim Ishak Ong Pang Boon Chen, Bernard Ong Teng Cheong Chiang Hai Ding Othman bin Haron Eusofe Chor Yeok Eng Ow Chin Hock Conceicao, J.F. Rohan bin Kamis Dhanabalan, S. Saidi Haji Shariff Fong Sip Chee Seah Mui Kok Goh Keng Swee Sia Khoon Seong Howe Yoon Chong Tan Cheng Sock Jek Yeun Thong Tan Keng Yam, Tony Lee Kuan Yew Tan Soo Khoon Mansor Haji Sukaimi Tay Eng Soon Phua Bah Lee Teh Cheang Wan Rajaratnam, S. Teo Chong Tee Selvadurai, P. Wan Hussin Zoohri Sia Kah Hui Wan Soon Bee Sidek bin Saniff Wong Kwei Cheong Tan, Augustine H.H. Yeo Choo Kok Tang See Chim Yeo Ning Hong Toh Chin Chye Yeo Toon Chia Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene

Clause 13 accordingly agreed to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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