Chua Sian Chin
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on this Bill as a person who had been in Government for many years and before that in legal practice for more than eight years and now back in legal practice. While I was in Government, I had cognizance of the shortcomings of the legal profession.”
“It is 62 members out of a total of 1,335 practising lawyers. This has brought about a situation which no responsible government can let it pass in the public interest. The Government has good reasons to deal with this situation firmly. In fact, the present amendments have only made a small inroad in self-regulation.”
“At the same time, a minority group of activists has also chosen to take on the Government by calling an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Law Society to pass fierce resolutions against the Government. This group comprised only 62 members.”
“Though he has only limited Constitutional powers and acts on the advice of the Cabinet, he is the symbol of the unity, loyalty and aspirations of the people of Singapore.”
“- to hold classes for children of his constituents. What right has he got? The PAP MPs equally have no such rights. It is the right of the Government, if they think so, to have such classes. In fact, through the People's Association, they have been holding kindergarten classes in the community centres.”
“It is the Government who says that, and the Government has the right to say it because they are responsible for the Government of Singapore. And it is not what I say or what you say. Let me turn to the Member for Potong Pasir. He also produced some exhibits which are equally bogus.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,639 lines we hold for Chua Sian Chin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 33.
“Why not? Why don't you answer that question?”
“But my concern is that the Law Society, the leaders of the Law Society, have not acted the way they should. That is my point.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my concern is not for individual lawyers.”
“These matters have already been reported and no action has been taken. That is the reason why I have mentioned it. I believe the Member for Potong Pasir is rather naive as not to have understood what I said.”
“It is 62 members out of a total of 1,335 practising lawyers. This has brought about a situation which no responsible government can let it pass in the public interest. The Government has good reasons to deal with this situation firmly. In fact, the present amendments have only made a small inroad in self-regulation. The main structure of the Legal Profession Act has not been touched. In fact, the Law Society and the legal profession as a whole should know that it is being given a second chance to show that it can regulate itself and deal with the errant members adequately, efficiently and expeditiously. I am confident, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the vast majority of the lawyers who have chosen to remain silent will generally support the principles behind the amendments to the Act.”
“At the same time, a minority group of activists has also chosen to take on the Government by calling an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Law Society to pass fierce resolutions against the Government. This group comprised only 62 members. Perhaps quite a number of them are members supporting the Member for Anson or the Member for Potong Pasir.”
“Self-regulation, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a privilege which carries a corresponding responsibility. It has a responsibility to prescribe proper standards of conduct for its members which must be sufficient to instil the confidence of the public. The growing size of the profession and its relative youth places added responsibility on the more senior members of the profession who must set high standards of conduct. The principle of self-regulation of the legal profession was introduced by the British. However, even in England today, there has been much apprehension over the principle of self-regulation. This is because the situation there is largely the same as that in Singapore. In England, non-lawyer members already sit on the regulatory bodies of the legal profession. There have also been calls for complaints against solicitors and disputes with clients to be dealt with by a body outside the Law Society and for a legal ombudsman to be set up to protect the interests of the general public. To sum up, Mr Speaker, Sir, what has in fact finally brought matters to a head is not only the lapses on the part of the legal profession to discipline their errant members and to maintain high standards of professional conduct but this negative impression was compounded by the fact that the Law Society has now elected as its President a member who has been disciplined not once but three times. He has been reprimanded once and suspended on two occasions, for one year and six months respectively. This act, Mr Speaker, Sir, has clearly demonstrated the utter disregard and unconcern for maintaining the good public impression of the profession on the part of those responsible.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me cite some of the examples apart from those already cited by the Minister. In one case that I know of, a complaint was made against a lawyer in 1982 alleging that he deceived a magistrate into granting a postponement of a case. A Disciplinary Committee was appointed in April 1983. Nobody knows whether today, after a lapse of three years, the Disciplinary Committee has submitted its report. It is generally believed that it has not. There is even one case of a Disciplinary Committee investigating into the misappropriation of client's monies by a solicitor which did not make any finding at all in its report. It had to be reminded to make a finding. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, I must say that the majority of cases brought before the Disciplinary Committee were processed satisfactorily. But there are sufficient examples which have been cited of undue delays in the conduct of proceedings and the tardiness in policing that make it clear that the system of self-regulation has failed and should not be allowed to continue. May I also point out that the cases I have cited are the known ones. What about the other cases which we do not know because they never went beyond the Inquiry Committee stage? If we compare, Mr Speaker, Sir, the position of the legal profession with other professional bodies, the legal profession is in a much privileged position. The Law Society is the only professional body in Singapore where Government officials are excluded from its governing council. On the other hand, Mr Speaker, Sir, as you know, the Medical Council, which is the governing body of our doctors, has the Director of Medical Services sitting as the ex-officio member of the Council.”
“I believe, Mr Speaker, Sir, he has not learned his lesson. I was therefore curious, Mr Speaker, Sir, to know why, when the Government first announced the introduction of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill, there was an immediate strong reaction on the part of 62 members of the profession who came out against it. They called for an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Law Society to deplore the Government's action. Among the reasons they gave was that the Bill deprived a member, whom the Supreme Court considered fit to be reinstated as an advocate and solicitor after his period of suspension, the right to stand for election and to hold office. To me, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is rather spurious logic because it does not follow that a member found to be fit to practise and to earn his living is in the same category as those who are elected to hold office. This is because the office-holders not only set the standards of behaviour and ethics of the profession but they also reflect the public image of the profession. Office -holders must therefore have an unblemished character. The small group of activists also complained that the Bill would deprive the lawyers of their independence, ie, their right of self-regulation. I wish to point out the misconception of their claim that without self-regulation there cannot be a strong Bar to safeguard the rights of all persons. The fallacy of their claim of inviolability of self-regulation is clear enough when we look at the record of the legal profession in Singapore in setting proper standards and policing its members. From what I know, the record of the Law Society in this respect is rather disturbing. And this knowledge is quite well known among members of the legal profession.”
“They called for an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Law Society ---”
“As a result, they have, by and large, allowed a minority group of activists to run and dictate the affairs of the profession in their name. And when the majority in the profession also fail to take action or to dissociate themselves from the activities of the delinquent few, then the public must inevitably conclude that the misdeeds of the few are accepted as the norm by the whole profession. This must seriously tarnish the good name of the legal profession. The contribution of the legal profession to the well-being of our society is a crucial one. There is no aspect of our everyday life that is not affected in some way or other by the law. Lawyers interpret the law and give advice to their clients who are members of the public. Members of the public act on their advice and stake their lives, careers and fortunes on the word of their lawyer. In many instances, because of the requirements of the law, people must place their monies in the hands of their lawyers. Because of such heavy responsibilities, it is absolutely vital that every member of the profession must not only be a person of the highest integrity and trustworthiness but must also be seen to be so. The lawyer must, like Caesar's wife, be above suspicion. Thus, if the legal profession is rather tardy in correcting their shortcomings and is unconcerned with protecting the good image of the profession, the Government is duty bound in the public interest to intervene and put things right. I was there- fore rather curious to know why, when the Government first announced the introduction of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill, there was an immediate strong reaction on the part of 62 members of the profession who came out against it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on this Bill as a person who had been in Government for many years and before that in legal practice for more than eight years and now back in legal practice. While I was in Government, I had cognizance of the shortcomings of the legal profession. I am therefore not surprised that things have now come to a head that the Government has considered it necessary to introduce the amendments to the Legal Profession Act which are before us. It is a rather sad reflection on members of the profession as a whole. In my view, this sad state of affairs has come about because the vast majority of the members of the profession,especially the senior members, have been so busy attending to their legal practice, that they have no time to be involved in the affairs of the profession. As a result they have ---”
“Though he has only limited Constitutional powers and acts on the advice of the Cabinet, he is the symbol of the unity, loyalty and aspirations of the people of Singapore. Thus the elevation of a person with Mr Wee Kim Wee's background, distinguished career and accomplishments to the Presidency, is not only appropriate but also symbolizes our embodiment of the "Singapore spirit" in the Presidency. Besides Mr Wee Kim Wee's hard experience of life that make for better understanding of human feelings and human suffering, those who are acquainted with him know that he has other likeable qualities of being warm hearted, friendly and helpful. All these will endear him to the ordinary Singaporean. I am sure that not only will my other fellow Members of Parliament support this motion with enthusiasm but the vast majority of the people of Singapore will welcome his election as our Fourth President with acclamation.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by the Prime Minister to elect Mr Wee Kim Wee as the President of the Republic of Singapore. To find the right person for this high office of President of the Republic of Singapore is not an easy task. The attributes that are required of such a person are very demanding. He must not only be a man of stature but he must also possess innate qualities that will endear him to the people of Singapore. He must further have the temperament as well as the bearing to uphold the dignity of the office and command the respect and trust of the people of Singapore. Mr Wee Kim Wee is eminently qualified to be elected to this high office of President. Those who know him have no doubts that he has all the major attributes to make a good President. Though he did not have the benefit of a University education, he had in fact a better and more comprehensive education by going through life and coming up the very hard way. It is really the rough and tumble of life that is the real test of a person's mettle which no amount of schooling and passing of examinations can be equal to. He had to leave school and go out to work to earn a living at the age of 15. At that time, only the privileged minority whose parents could afford it were sent to school and finished their education. It was a generation who had to work and struggle hard to get up in life. They belong to a generation who had in them the spirit of our early pioneers. It was that generation whose efforts made what Singapore is today. This spirit can be termed the "Singapore spirit". Under our present system of parliamentary democracy, our President is the Head of State.”
“First, he wanted to rear chickens. And he has thought it over that chickens may not be a viable proposition, he now wants to plant trees. But common sense will tell us that we do not just plant trees haphazardly. Only when you do not have order in the country that such things happen. But it is not so in Singapore. The Member for Potong Pasir should realize that if he plants too many trees close together without any order and professional expertise, the trees will not grow because they need sunlight. Further, as far as plants are concerned, and to beautify an estate, you need to have landscape architects and this is not a function of an MP. This is a function of experts employed by the Government or the authority in charge of beautifying an estate. Finally, may I say that what the two Opposition Members are trying to do is to belly-ache about discrimination and so on. Their objective is to prepare the day when at the end of their four or five-year term of office, their constituents would ask them what they have done to better the lives of their constituents. They know that they have not been effective and the best way to excuse themselves is to blame the Government. 12.48pm”
“Sir, let me continue by saying that the Member for Potong Pasir has nothing more earth-shaking or important to raise in this House except minor things, as we have already heard him. The second exhibit which he raised is about not being able to plant the exotic plant which he had been presented with, obviously for his own glorification. The way the Member for Potong Pasir has been making his demands, it amounts to him regarding Potong Pasir as his own farm and own estate. An hon. Member: Chicken farm!”
“At least, the Housing Board has been kind enough to allow you to work in the void deck.”
“Further, let me tell the Member for Potong Pasir that in the old days, the PAP MPs had to search for their own premises to establish their office or PAP Branch.”
“Why should the MPs have a privilege over the RCs?”
“It is the Government who says that, and the Government has the right to say it because they are responsible for the Government of Singapore. And it is not what I say or what you say. Let me turn to the Member for Potong Pasir. He also produced some exhibits which are equally bogus. First, he said, why is it that the HDB is not giving him an MP's office and is delaying? Can I tell him this? The RCs had to wait one year before they were given an office. They had to prove that they were worthy of an office.”
“It is not completely irrelevant. It is not irrelevant at all. May Day is for the trade unions and workers to hold a rally, not for political Parties.”
“- to hold classes for children of his constituents. What right has he got? The PAP MPs equally have no such rights. It is the right of the Government, if they think so, to have such classes. In fact, through the People's Association, they have been holding kindergarten classes in the community centres. And that has got nothing to do with the PAP MPs. So the first exhibit is a bogus one. The second exhibit is about holding of rallies during May Day. Can he produce evidence that the PAP as a Party has ever held any May Day Rally in Singapore?”
“I did not say that. I said what right has he got to demand that as an MP, fie and his Workers' Party has the right -”
“Sir, I am glad that I have given way to the Member for Anson. By his statement it is quite obvious that it is he who is trying to mislead this House.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at first, I decided not to speak on this motion moved by the Member for Anson because I expected him to play an old gramophone record which will emanate the same tune. But this time he tried to be a little melodramatic by saying that the alternative, to him, is armed revolution. And to justify his statement, he quoted the Prime Minister's speech made in the Legislative Assembly in 1956. How absurd can he be? Everyone knows that the conditions today are completely different from the conditions in 1956. In 1956, there was revolution, armed struggle. And, fortunately, because of the PAP Government's just and firm rule, we do not have such a revolutionary situation. I think the motive of the Member for Anson, and he is supported by the Member for Potong Pasir, is that they would like to try, if they can, to rouse certain people to feel that there is some revolutionary fervour and I think they have failed to do so. Therefore, they now try to smear the Government by making false allegations of discrimination and they have, as the papers said, produced exhibits. May I say that the exhibits they have produced are bogus exhibits. First of all, they alleged that they could not organize classes in the Anson Community Centre to exploit the emotions; they say, for children of poor parents. May I ask the Member for Anson, in particular, what right has he, as an MP, to demand that he hold classes in a community centre? Mr Jeyaretnam rose -”
“The police post at the Serangoon Gardens Estate will be set up next year and, may I stress, provided there is a sufficient infrastructure of grassroots organizations, such as residents' associations coupled with neighbourhood watch groups, to help the smooth implementation of the NPP system in the Serangoon Gardens Estate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes to Four o'clock pm sine die. WRITTEN ANSWER TO QUESTION TRAINING OF SAF PERSONNEL (SAFETY MEASURES) 1. Mr S. Chandra Das asked the Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health whether he is satisfied with the measures being taken by the three Services to ensure the safety of SAF personnel undergoing training, especially flying training.”
“The third reason is, from our experience of the implementation of the NPP system in the Toa Payoh Division, we found that the presence of an infrastructure of grassroots organizations, especially the Residents' Committees, is crucial in ensuring the successful implementation of the NPP system. It is these grassroots leaders that have made it possible to achieve rapport and closer interaction between the residents and NPP officers so quickly, particularly by their accompanying NPP officers in their house visits. Thus HDB estates are given priority in the implementation of the NPP system. Basing on this consideration, the constituencies with private housing estates will be given special consideration for earlier implementation of the NPP system if they have established a sufficiently comprehensive infrastructure of grassroots infrastructure, such as residents' associations and/or neighbourhood watch groups. Constituencies with now housing estates, pens of which are still under construction, will not have NPPs until the estate is fully developed. Taking into consideration all these factors, we have planned to set up all 91 NPPs by 1989, earlier by three years from what the Member has said. Let me refer to the Serangoon Gardens Constituency. I believe there is one new public housing estate called Serangoon North New Town which is under construction and it will be completed by 1989. Although it is a public housing estate, the NPP post will not be established until 1989 for the reasons I have just stated. However, because of the large area and peculiar shape of the Serangoon Gardens Constituency, two police posts are needed. One is to be sited in the Serangoon Gardens Estate consisting of bungalows and terrace houses and the other in the Serangoon North New Town.”
“It was found to be not a success because it was physically impossible for daily police patrols to cover a sufficient number of high-rise blocks to make their physical presence felt, and as a result there was hardly any interaction between the residents and the officers on patrol. In fact, it was this lack of success of policing high-rise apartment blocks that prompted us to rethink, and this made us finally to decide to make a fundamental change in our policing strategy and doctrine by adopting the NPP system. On the other hand, private housing estates of one-storey or two-storey bungalows or terrace houses as you find in Serangoon Gardens can still be effectively policed by our traditional methods of policing, although I must say that it is not ideal. We are now improving it by having more bicycle patrols. The objective of these bicycle patrols is to achieve a better interaction between the residents and police officers. As for the private high-rise condominiums, many of them have their own security arrangements, including deployment of security guards which effectively complements the police patrol. In other words, the need of our public housing estates is greater than the need of the private housing estates, be they high-rise condominiums or low-rise bungalows and terrace houses. Second, it is faster to build NPPs in HDB estates which have void decks. On the other hand, in constituencies which do not have HDB estates, NPPs will have to be built as independent structures. The search and reservation of such sites and the construction of the posts could take a much longer time.”
“I think the Member for Serangoon Gardens does not know that, in fact, in the first implementation of the NPP system in the Toa Payoh Division, police posts have been established in the Thomson and Aljunied Constituencies which are serving both the public and private housing estates in the constituencies. If the Member had a chat with the Member for Thomson and the Member for Aljunied, he would have known that. Our plan is to establish, in all, 91 neighbourhood police posts to cover the whole of Singapore. However, owing to the physical and other constraints, it is not possible to set up and run police posts all at once. Besides having to build the posts, we need also to recruit police officers of the right calibre and to train them to work as NPP officers because this is a most specialized type of policing. Much as we would like to recruit as many officers as we can as soon as possible, we are limited to their availability and response to our yearly recruitment exercises. Thus we have no alternative but to implement the NPP system in phases based on a system of priorities after taking into consideration a number of relevant factors. As I said just now, we have decided to give priority of implementation of the NPP system to constituencies which have large public housing estates. Let me explain. The reasons are, first, as a result of our urban renewal and public housing programme, more than 70% of our population are living in high-rise HDB estates. We soon found out that our traditional method of patrolling these high-rise buildings was ineffective and inappropriate. We then tried vertical policing.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I assure the Member for Serangoon Gardens that it is part of the plan to have police posts in private housing estates as well. I do not know where he got the information that there will be no NPP posts in private housing estates. I think he must have got the wrong information on this point. Although we will be having police posts in private housing estates, the priority of establishing these posts will be given to the public housing estates. And we have good reasons why it should be so. Perhaps I should say something about how we intend to establish these neighbourhood police posts throughout Singapore. After I have given the Member for Serangoon Gardens an idea of how we would go about it, I think he will be quite happy to know that Serangoon Gardens will not be left out. As I have recently announced, based on the very favourable results of the evaluation of the implementation of the NPP system in Toa Payoh Division, we have decided to extend the system to all constituencies. Each constituency will have at least one police post while the larger ones will have two posts. Police posts will be strategically located in the heart of residential areas so that the residents can conveniently have access to and from which police officers can be easily deployed. The main objective of the NPP system is to bring about closer rapport and interaction between the police officers and the residents. This is most important. The NPP system as I said is to service both the public and private housing estates.”
“Finally, the Bill also seeks to increase the maximum amount for compounding offences under the Immigration Act and Regulations from $100 to $500. Sir, I beg to move. 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 Chua Sian Chin), Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.59 pm”
“The penalty for this offence will be enhanced to include mandatory imprisonment for a term not less than six months and not exceeding two years. Twelve persons were convicted for this offence in 1983 compared to four each in 1982 and 1981. In addition, the Bill seeks to enhance the penalty for harbouring or employing any person who has contravened the Immigration Act or Regulations. The existing penalty for these offences is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding $6,000 or both such imprisonment and fine. The penalty will now be enhanced to include mandatory imprisonment for a term not less than six months and not exceeding two years, so as to deter would-be offenders. Furthermore, a person who gives shelter to an overstayer of more than 90 days or an illegal immigrant, would be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to know that the person whom he has harboured is an illegal overstayer or an illegal immigrant. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important to stress the seriousness of the offence because these people who are willing to offer shelter for the illegal overstayers or immigrants are in fact encouraging more foreigners to remain in Singapore illegally. They are the main source of the problem. The penalty for these offences must therefore be sufficiently deterrent so that it will not be worthwhile for anyone to harbour or employ any person who has contravened our immigration laws. The number of persons apprehended for the offence of harbouring increased sharply to 166 in 1983 compared to 57 in 1982 and 39 in 1981. Fifty-three persons were convicted of the offence of employing illegal overstayers or illegal immigrants in 1983 while 39 were convicted of the same offence during the first nine months of this year.”
“The Immigration Department can normally distinguish between those who overstay inadvertently for a few days, and those who do so intentionally without a valid reason. Usually only the bad cases are prosecuted while others are warned or given composition fines. In 1983 the number of over- stayers who were warned or given composition fines was 56,199, while the corresponding figure for the first nine months of this year was 55,180. 784 overstayers were prosecuted by the Immigration Department in 1983 compared to 1,382 from January to September this year. The Bill also seeks to amend section 36 of the Immigration Act to increase the penalty for the offence of unlawful return after removal. This is a serious offence as it involves foreigners who have been sent out of Singapore for various reasons, but choose to enter again illegally. The number of these cases rose sharply to 166 in 1983 compared to 39 in 1982 and only three in 1981. The present penalty of imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding $4,000 or both such imprisonment and fine is grossly inadequate. The proposed penalty will now include mandatory imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not exceeding three years, and a fine not exceeding $6,000. The penalty for attempted unlawful entry will be imprisonment for a term not less than three months and not exceeding two years, and a fine not exceeding $4,000. The present penalty for abetting any person to enter or leave Singapore in contravention of the Immigration Act or Regulations is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding $6,000 or both such imprisonment and fine.”
“If we do not discourage such foreigners from overstaying in Singapore illegally, there could be grave social repercussions for the country in the long term. Since they do not have a steady income from legal employment, some may resort to crime. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is necessary to ensure that our laws do not make it worthwhile for foreigners to prolong their stay in Singapore without a valid Immigration Pass. Under clause 4, if the period of overstay does not exceed 90 days, the penalty will be imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding $4,000 or both such imprisonment and fine. This is similar to the existing penalty except that the maximum fine has been increased from $2,000 to $4,000. If the period of overstay is more than 90 days, the offender will be liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than six months and not exceeding two years, and a fine not exceeding $6,000. Foreigners who overstay for such a long period often do so wilfully and are likely to be working here illegally. Some may have no intention of going back at all if they are not caught and may even start to have families in Singapore if they stay here long enough. Perhaps they hope that by prolonging their stay here for a long time, they could eventually pass off as Singaporeans and make Singapore their permanent home. This will be most undesirable and is detrimental to the interest of our citizens. As Singapore is only a small country of 618.1 sq km with a very high population density, we can ill-afford to accommodate such foreigners, especially when most of them have no skills and cannot make any economic contribution to our country. A heavier penalty is therefore prescribed for long term overstayers.”
“Since 1978, a total of 83 persons who were issued with Prohibition of Entry Orders had re-entered Singapore illegally, Out of this figure, 46 were found to have commiffed further offences after their illegal entry into Singapore. The present penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 or both such imprisonment and fine, is again manifestly inadequate. From January 1983 to September this year, 34 foreigners were convicted for contravening the Prohibition of Entry Order issued against them. Out of the 34 foreigners, 16 of them came in with new passports bearing different names. It is therefore necessary to impose a higher penalty, including caning, on foreign criminals who not only contravene Prohibition of Entry Orders, but also for their criminal deception. Such foreigners are obviously here to commit crime. They pose a danger to the security of our country, and we should not permit them to get away lightly when they are apprehended. Most of the offenders in the past were only fined between $400 and $2,000. The Bill also provides for enhanced penalties for overstaying in Singapore. Our liberal entry policy allows nationals of most countries in the world to visit Singapore without a visa. While we welcome the genuine visitors, we are also faced with a large number of foreigners who are reluctant to leave when their Social Visit Passes expire. Some who have come here from countries which are less well off than Singapore are tempted to stay on and work illegally. There are also cases of foreign workers who have resisted repatriation upon the expiry or cancellation of their work permits.”
“It is necessary to prescribe a heavier penalty for this offence, as foreigners who resort to entering our country illegally are a threat to our society. If they are not caught and penalised, they will remain here illegally for a long time and also commit crime. We cannot afford to allow such illegal immigrants to sink their roots here and be a severe burden on our housing, social, educational, health services at the expense of our citizens. We must therefore take tough measures to discourage foreigners from coming in and remaining here illegally. The present penalty which is imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding $4,000 or both, is not a sufficient deterrent. The number of persons prosecuted for this offence had risen from 79 in 1982 to 95 in 1983. Clause 3 increases the penalty for the contravention of a Prohibition & Entry Order to include imprisonment for a term not less than two years and not more than four years, and a fine not exceeding $6,000. The penalty is further enhanced in cases where the offender had previously committed any offence punishable with not less than three years imprisonment and who enters Singapore by using a travel document bearing a different name from that stated in the Order made against him. In such a case, he will be liable to imprisonment for a term of two years to five years and a fine not exceeding $10,000, and also to caning. This amendment to the law is necessary because the contravention of a Prohibition of Entry Order is one of the most serious offences under the Immigration Act. A Prohibition of Entry Order is only issued on foreigners who have committed serious offences in Singapore and they have to be kept out.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, although Singapore is a small country, we have attracted visitors from all over the world. Last year, 2.5 million foreigners visited Singapore from countries other than Malaysia. In addition, we have more than 150,000 foreign workers in Singapore on work permit. While we welcome the bona fide tourists and those who are legally working here, there are also a number of foreigners who have abused our hospitality and flouted our laws. The number of foreigners who were convicted for immigration offences in Singapore increased from 584 in 1981 to 1,207 in 1982 and 1,225 in 1983. The corresponding figure for the first nine months of this year was 1,553. In addition, many foreigners have also committed criminal offences in Singapore. From 1981 to 1983, a total of 7,565 foreigners were arrested for committing various criminal offences. The number of foreigners who come and commit crime in Singapore is rising. The present penalties in the Immigration Act are not sufficient to deter foreigners who intend to break our laws, or to effectively discourage people from harbouring or employing such foreigners. It is therefore necessary to amend the Immigration Act to provide for deterrent penalties for certain offences such as those relating to illegal entry, contravention of a Prohibition of Entry Order, illegal overstaying and harbouring or employing any person who has contravened our immigration laws. Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to enhance the penalty for illegal entry into Singapore. Offenders will be liable to imprisonment for a term not less than six months and not exceeding two years, and a fine not exceeding $6,000.”
“As at 31st July, 1984, there were 25,230 foreigners on employment passes in Singapore. The breakdown of the figures as sought by the Member is not available. A foreigner whose basic salary per month is more than $1500 may apply for an Employment Pass to work in Singapore. Graduates with recognised tertiary qualifications will be considered for Employment Passes even if they earn less than $1500 pm. Employment Passes are granted to those who can be of economic benefit to Singapore. They must be able to contribute to our economic growth and progress. When there is a doubt about the applicant's professional standing or technical competence, the Immigration Department will refer the application to the relevant vetting Ministry or Department for advice. Each application will be considered on its own merits. MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS 6. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Health (a) if he will give the number of medical practitioners registered in Singapore each year from 1971 to date under sections 9(l)(c) and 9(3) of the Medical Registration Act; (b) how many of them are still working in Singapore and (c) of those still in Singapore how many are in (i) Government hospitals; (ii) private hospitals; and (iii) private general practice.”
“A motorist who is merely speeding would therefore not be charged under the new provisions unless he had actually participated in a competition or trial of speed. Further, our Traffic Police officers have enough experience to know the difference between mere speeding and hell-riding. To constitute an offence under the proposed new section 68(3), there must at least be two vehicles travelling at fast speeds in competition. Other factors to constitute an offence would include deliberate overtaking of competing vehicles at high speed, taking corners at high speed in competition with another vehicle, disregarding traffic lights, and so on. Whether a motorist was racing or otherwise would have to be proven to the satisfaction of the court. There are, therefore, sufficient safeguards to protect them from prosecution for hell-driving/riding if they have not been involved in racing. Sir, I beg to move. 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 Chua Sian Chin]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.”
“A person convicted of the offence of hell-riding will also be liable to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of not less than 12 months from the date of conviction. In addition to these penalties, the new laws also provide for the confiscation of vehicles used in the commission of the offence of hell-riding, even though no person may have been convicted of such offence. Hell-riding activities are rampant right now because a hell-rider can easily acquire a motorcycle on instalment payments under hire-purchase. Hell-riders are charged for speeding or dangerous/ reckless driving under the Road Traffic Act, but there is no provision in the Act to empower the Police to confiscate a vehicle used for such activities. The forfeiture of vehicles used for hell-riding, irrespective of whether they were bought on hire-purchase or otherwise, would be an important deterrent to such activities as the hell-riders would lose their vehicles on conviction. When motorcycle traders are made to recover the cost of forfeited motorcycles from hell-riders through civil litigation, they would also exercise greater care in selling motorcycles to persons on hire-purchase. I would like to point out to the House that there is a clear difference between speeding and hell-riding. A person will be charged for speeding if he drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed greater than the speed which is prescribed as the maximum speed in relation to a vehicle of that class or description. On the other hand, a driver or rider who takes part in any competition or trial of speed shall be guilty of the offence of hell-riding. All enforcement officers on motorcycles are required to follow a speeding vehicle and clock its speed after 400 metres or so.”
“Although the operations resulted in many arrests, the punishments meted out to those convicted did not have a deterrent effect on such activities. Hell-riders are charged under the Road Traffic Act for speeding, reckless or dangerous driving, and driving without care or reasonable consideration. Out of 179 convictions from 1981 to 1983, prison sentences were meted out only in eight cases. In five of the cases, imprisonment was for one day and, consequently, the culprits went home when the court rose for the day. For the first seven months of this year, out of a total of 26 convictions, only one offender was sentenced to imprisonment for two months. In all the remaining cases, the culprits were only fined or fined plus disqualification. The fine imposed is normally less than $1,000. The continuous deployment of Traffic Police officers to pursue hell-riders/drivers and apprehend them is not only an unproductive use of manpower but is also dangerous to the enforcement officers as well as to the culprits and other road users. The Traffic Police have also been counselling all such offenders apprehended on the dangers of such activities, but to no avail. Heavier penalties are thus being sought virtually as a last resort. In the first seven months of this year there were 1,252 reported cases of hell-riding. It is therefore timely to enhance the punishment to deter such menace on our roads. This Bill therefore seeks to provide mandatory imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months in addition to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $2,000 for a first offence. For the second and subsequent offences, the penalty will be mandatory imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months in addition to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $3,000.”
“The Police have also stepped up enforcement by increasing patrols along roads and expressways where accidents used to occur, and are taking steps to enhance penalties for traffic offences. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, "hell-riding" or "hell-driving" activities by motorcyclists and motorists on our expressways and other roads have been a growing problem in the last few years. In 1981, there were 1,509 instances of hell-riding/driving reported; in 1982, 2,986 and last year 3,728. Such activities, often committed late at night and in the early hours of the morning, are not only a menace but also a nuisance to the public. Hell-riders race their vehicles beyond the maximum speed limits with total disregard for traffic rules. They not only endanger their own lives but also the lives of other road users. In 1979, there were only nine known venues where hell-riding activities took place regularly. In 1983, 20 such venues were identified. From only a few youth groups connected with hell-riding, the Traffic Police have now identified some 57 organized groups. In 1979, 42 hell-riders were arrested, compared to 800 in 1983. There is also a link between hell-riders and the rising incidents of motorcycle thefts. In 1983, the Traffic Police arrested nine hell-riders on stolen motorcycles. Thirteen stolen motorcycles were also recovered when their riders abandoned them. Gambling and fights with an undertone of secret society involvement have also taken place in connection with hell-riding. Over the years, the Traffic Police have stepped up their operations against hell-riding. In 1983, 61 operations were mounted and 4,620 vehicles were impounded for inspection of illegal modifications, compared to 729 vehicles in 1979.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." With the growing affluence of the Singapore population, the number of vehicles on our roads has been increasing at a rate of 6-7% each year. Despite fiscal disincentives in the form of higher Additional Registration Fees (ARF) and increased road taxes, car ownership has continued to grow. The motorcycle population grew even faster, at a rate of 8-10% each year, as there is no disincentive imposed on its ownership. In 1983, of the total number of 476,288 vehicles, 46% were motor cars and 30% motorcycles. The number of vehicles to population in the same year was 18,900 per 100,000 population compared to 13,100 per 100,000 population in 1978, an increase of 44%. On the other hand, there was only a small increase in our road mileage, from 2,263 km in 1978 to 2,568 km in 1983, an increase of 13%. This higher volume of vehicular traffic has resulted in greater congestion on our roads. It has also contributed to the rise in our accident rates. In 1983, 49,777 traffic accidents were reported compared to 32,752 in 1978, which is an increase of 17,025 cases or 52%. Of the 216 who died in road accidents in 1983, 45 or 21% were due to speeding. In the course of pursuing the hell-riders, some of our Traffic Police officers also suffered injuries. From 1979 to 1983, and for the first seven months of this year, there were at least nine such cases. The Traffic Police have responded to the situation by adopting both preventive as well as other remedial measures. It has embarked upon a plan to upgrade the training standards of drivers. At the same time, it has continued to educate the general public on the various aspects of road safety through campaigns, the mass media and schools.”
“With a 48-hour period for investigation, these occurrences will be minimized. I would also add, Sir, that the need for more time for investigations before a person is charged in court will become even more evident in future with the enhanced punishment recently introduced by the Minister for Home Affairs in the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. This is because enhanced punishment might make criminals more reluctant to cooperate with the police. The amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code will contribute significantly to the control of crime and just punishment of the offenders. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“During the few hours that an investigator now has, the pressure of the circumstances is in fact on the investigator to produce results quickly rather than on a thorough examination and on the pressure of the suspect to cooperate with the authority. For these reasons, the authority will need additional 24 hours to carry out the necessary follow-up actions without being disrupted by the need to produce the suspect in court. Sir, there are numerous examples in other countries where a person may be detained without charge for 48 hours. I will mention the example of England because our Criminal Justice System is modelled after that country and also the example of Japan since our system of Neighbourhood Police Post has been influenced from the Japanese experience. Sir, in England, where the power of detention is based on case law, it has been an established practice since 1980 for the police to hold a suspect without charge for up to 48 hours. Indeed, the British Government has before Parliament now a Bill which would seek power for the police to detain a person without charge for up to 96 hours. In Japan, after the initial 48 hours of detention, in fact, a further 24 hours is allowed with the consent of a Public Prosecutor. In both the countries cited, the authorities now have an uninterrupted 48-hour period with the suspect before deciding whether to charge the suspect in court. I might also add, Sir, that the increase in the period of detention would in some cases obviate the need to charge a person in court. For instance, when there are conflicting accounts from witnesses and the suspect, the investigator now has very little time to verify or investigate into all the circumstances of the case. He has no choice but to produce the suspect in court and request for custody.”
“In practice, the police are never able to take advantage of the full period of 24 hours for investigations for several reasons. As I said just now, the courts sit only during normal office hours and I have referred to the problem of cases where a suspect is arrested at night or early in the morning. There are also a number of procedural requirements to be fulfilled before a suspect can be produced in court. For serious and registrable offences, arrangements have to be made for the fingerprints and photograph of the accused person to be taken. The necessary paper work required to bring the accused to court places further demand on the investigator's time. As a result, an investigator normally has only a few hours with the suspect before he has to decide whether to produce the suspect in court within the time limit or to release him at the expiry of the 24-hour limit either on bail or unconditionally. Therefore, Sir, the few hours that an investigator has with a suspect is woefully inadequate for investigations to be carried out properly and thoroughly. The period just after arrest is the best time for questioning an arrested person because the shock effect of the arrest lingers on the suspect. This is the time when a suspect is likely to be cooperative, especially when he is confronted with evidence of his wrongdoing. Other follow-up actions have to be taken immediately if the case is to be successfully investigated; eg, arrest of accomplices, recovery of stolen property, search and seizure of material evidence, recording of confessions, and so on. Delays will give the opportunity for accomplices to flee, cause evidence to disappear, give time for false defences to be conjured up and make memories to be more fallible.”
“The next clause of the Bill (clause 3) provides that where an offender is sentenced at one trial to imprisonment for at least three distinct offences, the sentences for at least two of such offences should run consecutively rather than concurrently. The purpose of this amendment, Sir, is to ensure that a person who has committed multiple offences will receive a longer sentence than one who commits a single offence. I now turn to clause 4 of the Bill. This clause extends from 24 to 48 hours (exclusive of the time necessary for the journey to courts) the period a person can be detained in custody when he is arrested without a warrant by a police officer. This amendment is related to the amendment that has just been made to Article 9(4) of the Constitution by the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill. The amendment is necessary to enable the police to investigate offences more thoroughly. The present 24-hour limit places undue constraints on police investigations. As the courts sit only during normal office hours, this means that in practice suspects who are arrested at night or outside office hours would have to be produced in court sometimes in a matter of 8 to 10 hours. By extending the limit to 48 hours the police would be in a boner position to complete their investigations and to carry out follow-up action which would include the arrest of accomplices, recovery of stolen property, searching for and seizing of material evidence, holding of identification parades and the recording of statements. Mr Speaker, Sir, under the existing legislation, the police may hold a suspect arrested for any offence for a period of up to 24 hours. Before the expiry of 24 hours, the suspect must either be released or produced in court.”
“At present, the periods of corrective training or preventive detention which a court can impose on an offender are comparatively shorter. As the law now stands, corrective training can only be imposed on an offender who is above the age of 18 years when he has been previously convicted of at least two offences punishable with imprisonment for two years or upwards. Clause 2 of the Bill, whilst retaining this provision, also empowers the court to impose corrective training on an offender with one previous conviction in respect of a serious offence, where he is again convicted of three or more distinct offences punishable with imprisonment for two years or upwards. However, the offender must have received a sentence of at least one month imprisonment for the previous offence. An offender who has been to prison once before ought to know the consequences of committing further offences. If he commits a series of offences subsequently, the short term of imprisonment imposed on the previous occasion has clearly failed to deter him from a life of crime. Hence the need for this amendment. Similarly, a sentence of preventive detention can at present be imposed on an offender who is above 30 years of age when he has at least three previous convictions for offences punishable with imprisonment for two years or upwards. Clause 2 of the Bill, whilst retaining this provision, extends the powers of the court to impose a sentence of preventive detention on an offender who is convicted of three or more distinct offences punishable with imprisonment for two years or upwards and has previously been convicted of a serious offence and sentenced to imprisonment for at least one month.”
“The man was acquitted because the ordinary rules of criminal procedure had to be applied. The rule of admissibility of evidence has to be applied to cases of drug traffickers and criminals who intimidate witnesses. And this case which the Member for Anson has applied is a case of intimidation of witnesses, then of course you cannot get a conviction, and these are the very cases where the provisions of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act are designed for. 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 Chua Sian Chin]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.44 pm The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, in moving the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill earlier, the Minister for Home Affairs explained in detail to the House the need for more deterrent penalties for certain offences which have been on the increase. In line with this policy, clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill seek to further enhance the sentencing powers of the court in dealing with persistent or habitual offenders so that they may be kept in custody for longer periods. Clause 2 empowers a court, in certain circumstances, to impose (in lieu of imprisonment) a sentence of corrective training for a period of not less than five years and not more than 14 years, or of preventive detention of not less than seven years and not more than 20 years.”
“If we have to bring that person before a court of law using the Criminal Procedure Code, then we do not need this Amendment Bill.”