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 9 of 33.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I correct a misconception on the part of the Member for Punggol? When I said that I hoped my answer would satisfy him, I was implying that if it could satisfy him, it must also satisfy his constituents. The fact that he has spoken eloquently on behalf of his constituents is an indication that he will only be satisfied if his constituents are satisfied. May I clarify? Divisional headquarters stations have been built in Toa Payoh and Jurong, and one is being built in Napier Road. These stations are not being built because of proposals for road widening. For example, shifting the headquarters station from Bukit Panjang, the former Rural West Divisional Headquarters station, to Jurong is not the result of a proposal for road widening. There is no such thing. These stations have been built because of a shift in population. We have to relocate them properly so that they can serve a congregation of populated areas. I do not disagree at all with the sentiments and the eloquent advocacy of the Member for Punggol and the Member for Jalan Kayu of the urgent need for divisional headquarters stations in four Police Divisions, including Paya Lebar. I am not passing the buck. I am glad that the Minister for Finance is here today to hear the eloquent advocacy of the Member for Punggol and the Member for Jalan Kayu for new divisional headquarters stations. And I support their sentiments. As far as the Ministry of Home Affairs is concerned, we will do our best to get these stations. As Members know, we cannot call for tenders unless we have the funds or we are permitted, like community centres, to raise funds. I am not passing the buck. I like to put forward the plain facts of life without having to enunciate another commandment.”
“Originally, my Ministry proposed that the Central Police Station in A Division should continue to remain at the former Police Headquarters at Eu Tong Sen Street. However, after consultation with the Urban Redevelopment Authority, we proposed to the Ministry of Finance to relocate the police station at Cantonment Road by 1984 to make way for urban redevelopment at the present Eu Tong Sen site. In the plan submitted to the Ministry of Finance. in 1976, we also proposed the creation of two new Land divisions at Clementi New Town and Woodlands New Town, bringing the total number of police stations from the existing eight to ten. The Ministry of Finance raised a number of points on this plan for redevelopment of police stations and the creation of the two new Land divisions with the building of the new two divisional headquarters stations. Officials of my Ministry are still holding discussions on the matter, and I hope they can come to an amicable settlement that will satisfy the Member for Punggol.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the views and sentiments expressed by the Member for Punggol with regard to the building of a new headquarters station for the F Division. But what I do not agree with him is his suggestion that there are no plans for building such a Divisional Headquarters for F Division. In fact, we have this plan to build a new headquarters police station for quite some time. We have, in fact, been implementing part of the plan. May I say that in 1976 we shifted the Rural West Divisional Headquarters temporarily from Bukit Panjang to Yung Loh Road in Jurong New Town because of a shift in population. We started to build the Jurong Headquarters Station as part of a plan to build a new divisional headquarters station. Since 1 5th March, 1980 the new Jurong Police Station at Corporation Road has been in operation. That is why I have not had any queries from the Member for Jurong. In 1977, we also built and completed the headquarters station for the B Division in the Toa Payoh New Town to replace the old police station at Kandang Kerbau. At the moment for the E Division (Orchard Road) a new headquarters station is being built at Napier Road. It is expected to be completed in October this year. As early as August 1976, my Ministry submitted to the Ministry of Finance a comprehensive plan on the redevelopment of four other existing police stations in the A, C, F and G Divisions. The proposal was that the Beach Road Police Station in C Division should be relocated at Aljunied Road; the Paya Lebar Police Station in F Division be moved to Ang Mo Kio New Town, and the Joo Chiat Police Station in G Division be shifted to Bedok New Town.”
“It could mean a new form of martial art in which the instructor does not sleep l But since we do not have such expertise, we will first investigate to see whether there is such an association and whether it is a respectable association. As far as competency is concerned, we shall refer it to the Singapore Sports Council.”
“Sir, I will just answer the questions put by the Member for Kolam Ayer. I agree with what he said with regard to his three commandments. With regard to the minimum age for instructors, as far as the Martial Arts Control Unit of the Ministry of Home Affairs is concerned, they do not impose a minimum age for registration as instructors. Anyone wishing to be registered as an instructor must be of good character. That is the most important requirement. He must also possess a certificate of competency or testimonial of proficiency in the type of martial an he wishes to teach. This is issued by the chief instructor of the respective martial arts association or the controlling body of the martial art. I must say that the Martial Arts Control Unit has no expertise to evaluate the professional competence of the various types of martial art instructors. What we do is to consult the Singapore Sports Council on every application for registration of a martial arts instructor. We issue an instructor's certificate if the applicant is found to be competent to teach the form of martial art as stated in the certificate. In the majority of cases this is quite specific. However, in the past, the Martial Arts Control Unit had also issued certificates to martial arts instructors to teach mixed martial arts, that is to say, a combination of the various types of martial arts - Taekwondo, Karate, Thai boxing, and so on. I hope that answers the second part of his question. As regards a new form of martial art, as an example the Member referred to Taktido. I do not know what is meant by that.”
“Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1980 to 31st March, 1981 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1980 to 31st March, 1981, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow. Mr Speaker: So be it. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Chua Sian Chin]. Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen minutes past Six o'clock p.m. figures - NO. OF PROVISIONAL MOTORCYCLE DRIVING LICENCES (PDL) ISSUED (Cols. 1115 - 1116)”
“I entirely agree with the Member for River Valley that stiffer sentences in such cases will act as a deterrent to would-be negligent riders or drivers, thereby lessening the carnage on our roads. As far as yesterday's case is concerned, the Police consider the sentence to be inadequate and they are considering filing an appeal. MOTORCYCLE PROVISIONAL DRIVING LICENCES 2. Mr Yeo Toon Chia asked the Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Culture (a) how many motorcycle provisional driving licences have been issued monthly since January 1979 up to the latest convenient date; and (b) if he will consider raising the minimum age of applicants for such licences from 16 to 21 years.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Registration of Criminals Act provides for the registration of persons who are convicted of certain crimes in Singapore or Malaysia. The crimes are listed in the First and Second Schedules to the Act. Persons who are ordered to be banished, expelled or deponed tom Singapore or Malaysia are also registrable. Under the existing section 7 of the Act, the Commissioner of Police has the power to dispense with registration where an accused person has been convicted of an offence included in the Second Schedule to the Act and sentenced to a fine not exceeding $25. In the light of inflation, this sum is derisory. Clause 2 of the Bill, therefore, seeks to amend this section to increase the limit to $1,000. It is also intended that the Commissioner of Police be given a wider discretionary power to dispense with registration. There are many obsolete references in the existing Part II of the First and Second Schedules to the Act which have resulted from revision of other laws in the past. Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact Part II of the First and Second Schedules with up-to-date references. 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. INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading reed.”
“Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for National Development whether the Urban Redevelopment Authority has any plan to build a hotel in the Upper Changi area, in conjunction with the Changi Airport project, to accommodate persons on short stay or stopover in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minor Offences Act (Cap. 102) contains provisions empowering the Police to deal with noise nuisance created by audio-visual or other equipment and musical instruments. However, these provisions were enacted in the days when few people had such equipment and instruments, and they have now become outdated. These provisions are also not wide enough because action against an offence of noise nuisance caused to neighbours can be taken only when it is committed between 12 midnight and 6 a.m. Besides, the maximum fine of $50 for such offences is not a deterrent any more. The Police have submitted some proposals to the Attorney-General's Chambers to remedy these shortcomings. In addition, the Police have proposed that the scope of the provisions be expanded to enable them to deal effectively with other types of noise nuisance, such as the roar of motor-cycles caused by the deliberate revving-up of the engine. The Police are also asking for powers to prevent offenders from continuing with the nuisance by removing the instruments or equipment or by dispersing those responsible, where warnings are not heeded. The Attorney-General's Chambers are now looking into the proposals. They have pointed out that the subject is complex because of the difficulty in determining objectively what noise level constitutes a nuisance. They are conducting a careful research into the subject by studying similar legislation obtaining in other countries, before drafting the necessary amendments. HOTEL IN UPPER CHANGI AREA 5.”
“Clause 6 repeals and re-enacts a new paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act, to provide that an umpire need not be appointed immediately unless the arbitrators cannot agree among themselves. 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. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clause I -”
“The present procedure is capable of being used by undeserving parties for the purpose of delaying the evil day when they are to meet their liabilities. The clause also empowers the High Court to order an arbitrator or umpire to state the reasons for his award in sufficient detail. Clause 5 enacts new sections 28A, B, C and D. The new section 28A gives the High Court jurisdiction to determine preliminary points of law arising in the course of references to arbitration. Such a measure will produce substantial savings in costs to the parties. The new section 28B provides for the right to make agreements excluding the jurisdiction of the High Court to review an arbitration award. The new section 28C provides that in the case of arbitrations not involving foreign nationals or companies (i.e. domestic arbitrations), the right of appeal to the High Court can only be excluded after the arbitration has begun. This is to prevent a party who is in a weak bargaining position (e.g. a consumer or small trader) from being bullied into agreeing in advance to forgo the limited right of appeal to the High Court. It is felt that foreign nationals or corporations who choose Singapore as the venue for the settlement of their disputes by arbitration should be permitted to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts so that the decisions of the arbitrators will be final and conclusive, enabling such disputes to be resolved at an early date. The new section 28D empowers the High Court to authorise an arbitrator or umpire to proceed with the arbitration where a party fails to comply with an order given by the arbitrator or umpire. This is to discourage parties to a reference from disobeying the orders of an arbitrator.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Our Arbitration Act (Chapter 16) was enacted in 1953 and based upon the United Kingdom Arbitration Act, 1950. In 1979 the United Kingdom Act was amended to implement a number of law reforms recommended in the Report on "Arbitration" by the Commercial Court Committee. The Bill before this House seeks to introduce the recent changes made in the United Kingdom to assist our commercial community resolve their disputes more speedily. Clause 2 amends section 8 which deals with the power of the High Court to appoint an arbitrator or umpire in various circumstances. At present, the High Court has no power to make the appointment if the arbitration agreement provides that it shall be made by a stranger (e.g. the President of a professional body) and he fails or refuses to make the appointment. Clause 2 seeks to amend section 8 to fill this gap. Clause 3 repeals and re-enacts section 10 to provide that in any case where there is a reference to three arbitrators, the award of any two of them shall be binding. At present, where an arbitration agreement provides that the reference should be to three arbitrators, one to be appointed by each of the parties and the third by the arbitrators, section 10 of the Arbitration Act converts the third arbitrator into an umpire. As such, he has no jurisdiction unless and until the other two arbitrators disagree. This is unfair to those people who favour three-arbitrator agreements. Clause 4 repeals and re-enacts section 28 to provide a new procedure for judicial review of arbitration awards. The present procedure by way of "case stated" will be replaced by a limited right of appeal to the High Court on points of law.”
“The disadvantage of internationalisation is that it could give rise to large destabilising flows into and out of the Singapore dollar. The resulting swings in the exchange rate of the dollar would cause some disruption in trade. Such currency flows would also render the control of the money supply more difficult. EX GRATIA PAYMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES 10. Mr Ho See Beng asked the Minister for Finance whether he has any objection to management rewarding its employees with ex gratia payments because of good profit made in 1979 as a result of the workers' increased productivity and efficiency.”
“Sir, I do not think it is funny. But I thought it is best for me to read the report that has emanated from Johore Bahru as it should allay the fears, if any, of the parents, about how unfounded these rumours are. And that is not a funny thing. I am sorry that the Member for Kampong Kembangan has regarded it as funny, just because some Members laughed. May I, therefore, assure the Member for Kampong Kembangan and all the parents who had rung him up that the rumours are completely unfounded. They are not only unfounded here in Singapore but also in Johore, as reported in the newspaper report which I have read. SINGAPORE DOLLAR (Internationalisation) 9. Mr Ang Nam Piau asked the Minister for Finance when the Government will make the Singapore dollar an international currency and if he will state the advantages and disadvantages of the Singapore dollar becoming an international currency. The Minister for Finance (Mr Hon Sui Sen): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore dollar has traditionally been used to finance some of our entrepot and regional trade. There are no restrictions on the use, or international use if you like, of our currency for this purpose. At the same time, there has also been no official encouragement for the wider use of our currency. It is not my intention to encourage such use. If by "internationalisation", the hon. Member means also the use of the Singapore dollar as a reserve currency, I have to say that, like many more developed countries such as Germany and Japan, this will not be welcomed. The wider use of the Singapore dollar will lead to the further growth of our foreign exchange, money and capital markets. It will also lead to increased use of local banking facilities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I advise the Member for Kampong Kembangan not to listen to rumours! [Laughter] The rumours are completely unfounded. I do not know how the rumours originated. But I think they could have originated from outside Singapore, because I happened to read the New Straits Times of 21st February, 1980, published in Kuala Lumpur, in which it was reported that similar rumours were spread in Johore, both in Batu Pahat and Kota Tinggi. With your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I read the relevant parts of the New Straits Times? The report is titled, "Police move to head off these rumours", the "Police" meaning the Johore Police. "Johore Police have issued a warning to the public not to spread rumours of head-hunters in the State. The Deputy OCCI, Encik Jamil Hassan, said Police would take court action against anyone found spreading such rumours. He said there was no truth in the rumours and appealed to the public not to be influenced by them. Encik Jamil said this following a panic among the public, especially here [that is, Johore Bahru] in Batu Pahat and Kota Tinggi about the head-hunting stories. Some people have even received a list containing the registration numbers of 18 cars whose drivers were alleged to be head-hunters. Most of the cars bear Pahang registration plates. Encik Jamil said a family here panicked yesterday when their child returned home from school late. They thought that their child had become a victim of the headhunters. The child was late because the school bus sent the child home late." So my advice is not to listen to rumours. They have no foundation of truth whatsoever. I do not think there are head-hunters in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there were six gang clashes and four murders by secret society members in 1978, and six gang clashes and three murders in 1979. There were, however, 38 incidents in 1974, showing a 76% drop in such secret society incidents in the past five years. The 19 incidents in 1978 and 1979 occurred at the following places: Public housing estates - 4 Kampongs - 3 Red light areas - 3 Coffee shops - 2 Shopping Centres - 4 Nightclubs - 2 Cinema - 1 The victims and people involved or suspected to be involved in the incidents were from the lower income groups. They had only primary education and were employed as unskilled or semi-skilled workers. To contain the secret society problem, the Police keep an eye on known secret society members and try to gather intelligence in areas where secret societies are known to be active in order to foil their plans. Wherever possible, people who are involved in secret society activities are prosecuted in court. Where witnesses are not prepared to give evidence in court, the offenders are either detained or placed under Police supervision under the provisions of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act.”
“Sir, I have answered the question about snatch thefts. With regard to outrage of modesty and related cases, may I tell the Member that in 1979 there was only one case of outrage of modesty and another case of indecent exposure. For the case of outrage of modesty, a resident of the constituency was arrested. "GANG-LAND" CRIMES (Particulars) 8. Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many "gang-land" clashes and murders were recorded in Singapore in the last two years; where the incidences occurred; what were the socio-occupational profiles of the victims and persons suspected to be involved; and what control measures will be taken to contain these problems.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, 104 criminal cases were reported in the Kampong Kembangan Constituency in 1979; 15 more than in 1978. Housebreaking offences increased markedly, from 16 cases in 1978 to 38 in 1979. Thefts of motor vehicles, bicycles and vehicle parts increased from 24 cases in 1978 to 37 in 1979. However, there was a big drop in robbery cases, from 13 in 1978 to two in 1979. Other thefts decreased from 31 cases in 1978 to 22 in 1979. Most of the premises which were broken into were shophouses and factories. The Crime Prevention Officer from Joo Chiat Police Station visited these types of premises and advised the owners and occupants on anti-burglary measures. In addition, police officers from the Station joined the members of the Kampong Kembangan CCC on their house-to-house visits to give advice on crime prevention. Two crime prevention exhibitions were held in the Constituency in 1978 and 1979. The Kampong Kembangan Constituency has been and will continue to be patrolled by Team Policing cars from the Joo Chiat Police Station and patrol-cars from the Radio Division. The Station will monitor closely the crime situation in the Constituency. When necessary, uniformed or plainclothes officers from the Police Reserve Units and the Station's Task Forces comprising Police National Servicemen will be deployed to intensify patrolling.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of hon. Members present to move a motion to exempt the proceedings on the matter to be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment today from the time limits laid down in Standing Order 1(8)(b)? I understand that some Backbenchers wish to speak on the matter which the Member for Jurong proposes to raise.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not engage them on a regular basis. I think some of them have come back to SANA and volunteered to do rehabilitation work, which is much better. They have been through hell and they can tell what it is like to go through this difficult period in order to rescue themselves. SANA has done that. Many of them have been courageous enough to appear on TV to speak about their experiences. The programme entitled the "Long Road Back", was participated by a few of these ex-drug addicts who spoke about their experiences. 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. CINEMATOGRAPH FILM HIRE DUTY (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.16 p.m.”
“When they return home and members of their family can give encouragement and show understanding, they have a better chance of success. I agree with the Member for Mountbatten, although not from a social scientist's point of view, that many of them have taken to drugs because of a bad family life, such as a lack of parental care when they were young. In this respect, we would also like to change the attitude of the parents and so help them on this difficult road back to society. 4.13 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I must clarify the points which have been raised by the Member for Kolam Ayer. First of all, I did not say that I have confidence or no confidence in social scientists. However,( do take note of what they say. Regarding the wardens in charge of the drug rehabilitation centres, they are just the custodial staff. They just run the drug rehabilitation centres. They do not do any rehabilitation work. The rehabilitation work is done by our rehabilitation officers. We have rehabilitation officers, psychologists, doctors, and so on, put in charge of rehabilitation. They hold meetings, counselling sessions, and so on. In addition to these people, we have, in cooperation with SANA, invited their counsellors and voluntary after-care officers to come and counsel the drug addicts. In fact, SANA has been doing a good job in this respect. There is no point in recruiting Government servants to do this. It is better to recruit people who like to do social work, people from the religious organisations, the churches, the Muslim, Buddhist, and the Hindu organisations and so on. SANA has been doing this. They have gone from one constituency to another to recruit them. If they have not gone to Kolam Ayer, I will suggest that they go there, and the Member for Kolam Ayer can help them to recruit these counsellors. It is better to get honourary members of the public who are interested in social work to counsel these addicts. That is also part of the rehabilitation scheme. As I have said, we can break their physical dependence on drugs but it is very difficult to break their psychological dependence and they need constant counselling. At the same time, they also need encouragement and help from members of their own family.”
“That is being done not only through the schools but also through SANA, their volunteer counsellors, and so on. I do not have to say very much about RTS and the proposed Singapore Broadcasting Corporation. I think my colleague, the Acting Minister for Culture, will reply when the Bill comes up for Second Reading later on. Whatever it is, as far as the Central Narcotics Bureau is concerned, they are faced with a problem and they are doing everything they can to solve it. We have managed to solve the drug addiction problem to some extent because we now have fewer additions to the pool of addicts. We are, therefore, concentrating on rehabilitation. Let me be the first to say that we have not exhausted our efforts at rehabilitation. That is the reason why we are trying to reinforce the existing programme by the addition of this day-release scheme.”
“May I point out that we are also fully aware of the fact that some of them are breadwinners and, therefore, as part of the rehabilitation programme in the drug rehabilitation centre, we are providing them with an opportunity to be employed. The object of this scheme is two-fold. First, it forms part of the rehabilitation process and, secondly, they can at the same time earn some money. That is the reason why we feel that the day-release scheme, which is a half-way house method of rehabilitation, will answer some of the points which the Member for Mountbatten has raised, namely, by allowing an ex-addict to go back to his former surroundings, he may very easily relapse. That is the reason why we suggest that before allowing him complete freedom to go back and move around as he likes, he should be allowed to enjoy half-freedom only for a period during which he could work and earn a wage in the same way as he would be earning if he is completely free. At the same time, during this period we will keep a check on him. This is what is, called a half-way house concept which many social scientists and social workers support as a good way to solve the problem arising from complete freedom as against a strict regime. Next, the Member asked about the causes of drug addiction, and what are we doing to eliminate these causes, and are we treating this problem symptomatically? May I say this. Eradicating the causes of drug addiction is a vast problem. We are doing everything we can. No single body, the Ministry or Government itself, can completely eradicate the causes even though we know what they are. It must be tackled by the Government together with the people. One of the main areas is education.”
“My answer is that it is not for the civil servants to decide. It is the Review Committee which is chaired by a qualified doctor which will study every case and make their recommendations. So efficiency, over-efficiency or cautiousness does not come into the picture. The experts will study every case and make their recommendations. On the other hand, may I also say that whenever the Review Committee considers cases for release, it must be satisfied that the person in question has been fully rehabilitated. Otherwise, it is wasting everybody's time to release a person who has only been half rehabilitated because he will go back to his old ways of addiction, and hence back again to the rehabilitation centre. It is not in the interest of the ex-drug addict to be released prematurely. I think this is certainly one of the points which the Member will agree with me. As I have said just now, it is not an easy matter to cure a drug addict. I have explained the difference between physical dependence and the psychological dependence on drugs. After a period of treatment and rehabilitation in a drug rehabilitation centre, we can achieve some measure of success with his physical dependence, but it is his psychological dependence which must be completely cured before he can resist temptation. That is the most important factor and something that is intractable. The Member for Mountbatten has rightly stated that if a person who is being detained for treatment in a drug rehabilitation centre is the breadwinner of a family, it will cause hardship to his family. Of course, it will cause hardship. But we are dealing with a social problem where the premature release of an ex-addict will not help his family because a relapse to addiction will make him a hard-core.”
“The present Review Committee is chaired by a psychiatrist on a voluntary basis, and in its membership there are also people who are social workers. The Review Committee considers every case on its merits, Therefore, when a drug addict's case comes up for review after six months, if he is found to have been fully rehabilitated he is released or, if he is not released, he may have his stay extended for another three or six months. So every case is treated on its own merits. There is no blanket formula as such whereby a person is detained for so many months. It is necessary to extend the period of detention to three years because there are a few hard-core addicts who have been sent to the drug rehabilitation centre two or three times. They are the people who need longer rehabilitation. Even if there are only five such cases, we still have to extend the period of their detention from two to three years to cover them, otherwise they will be excluded from this scheme. I am glad to note that the Member for Mountbatten has taken a personal interest in the drug addiction problem in his constituency. A number of Members of Parliament have also taken an interest. I hope more Members of Parliament will take an interest in the drug addiction problem in their respective constituencies because that will help the authorities to do what they can to rehabilitate these drug addicts or ex-drug addicts. The Member for Mountbatten says that his figures are different from mine. That, of course, is expected. They must be different because he deals with his own constituency only. My figures are for the whole of Singapore. The Member also commented that some of the civil servants administering the drug rehabilitation scheme being too cautious might unnecessarily prolong the detention period.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Member for Mountbatten for making a provocative speech and asking questions of me, which gives me an opportunity to clarify. I will try my best to give a comprehensive explanation to some of his misconceptions of the intention of the Amendment Bill. First of all, an extension of the period of detention from two to three years is necessary in order to accommodate the day-release scheme and, secondly, it is not done just because we want to prolong the detention of the drug addicts in the drug rehabilitation centres. As I have explained in my speech just now, we do not want the period of normal rehabilitation in the drug rehabilitation centres to be encroached upon by the need for the extra period necessary for the day-release scheme. We have not arrived at the figure of three years by any magic. I do not think we can arrive at any magic figure either. It is just pure common sense that if we need a longer period to accommodate the day-release scheme we have to extend the period from two to three years. But may I say that this period of extension from two to three years is just the maximum period of detention. It is not a period which will be imposed on every addict or inmate of the drug rehabilitation centres. Perhaps the Member for Mountbatten is not aware that if a person has been sent for rehabilitation in a drug rehabilitation centre, his case is being regularly reviewed to determine whether or not he has been fully rehabilitated, and the review is not done by any Government official but by a Review Committee chaired by a medical officer or a person with medical training. In fact, the chairman need not be a Government medical officer.”
“There is currently no provision in the Act whereby an inmate can be taken out from detention and be produced at places where his attendance is necessary. For example, an inmate may be required to attend court or other proceedings either to answer legal charges or as a witness. Clause 3 seeks to provide the Superintendent of an approved institution with the authority to exercise such powers. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Based on the number of inmates in drug rehabilitation centres, it is anticipated that between 1,100 and 1,200 ex-drug addicts will be placed on day-release by August next year. To implement this scheme, section 34 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1973, has to be amended to make provision for the granting of leave to inmates for the purpose of their employment outside an approved institution. Clause 5 of the Amendment Bill seeks to empower the Minister to make regulations for the granting of such leave. In order for.the day-release scheme to be effective, disciplinary sanctions have to be included in the Regulations. Section 33 of the Act has to be amended to increase the maximum period of detention of an inmate from two to three years. This is necessary to ensure that the day-release phase will not be at the expense of the normal period required for treatment and rehabilitation in drug rehabilitation centres. Clause 2 of the Bill is for this purpose. Clause 4 seeks to deem that an inmate is in legal custody while he is outside an approved institution for authorised purposes. I am also taking the opportunity to make other amendments to the Act to regularise or facilitate existing practices. Presently only the Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau has power under section 33(1) of the Act to require persons who are reasonably suspected to be drug addicts to be medically examined or observed by a Government medical officer. It is necessary to delegate this power to his Deputy in order to remove the bottleneck in the processing of suspects whenever the Director is not available to exercise the power. Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to do this.”
“Meals will be provided for the inmates but they will have to pay for their meals taken outside the camps. Inmates may be allowed to spend the weekends with their families. The Day-Release Scheme does not only prepare the ex-addicts to rejoin society but also provides the means to test whether they can resist the temptations which they must face eventually. Those who pass the test will have a stronger psychological resistance to temptations. Those who fail the test will be detected promptly through the daily urine tests and through other means. Employers should no longer be reluctant to employ ex-addicts who are on day-release. They have the reassurance that ex-addicts who misbehave will be taken back to drug rehabilitation centres. They can also expect prompt replacement of ex-addicts who abscond or who have to be taken back. In return, all that we want of the employers is that they treat the ex-addicts as they would treat their other employees. From 1st September this year a pilot scheme was launched on a voluntary basis. Fifty ex-addicts who volunteered were allowed to work in a factory in Bedok. They work in two shifts. I am pleased to say that so far the employer has found the day-releasees to be good workers and all of them have shown exemplary conduct. We plan to set up day-release camps in the major industrial areas of Jurong, Kranji and Bedok/Chai Chee. The first day-release camps will be located in Changi to cater for firms in the Bedok and Chai Chee areas requiring day-releasees. A Job Placement Unit has been established in the Central Narcotics Bureau, and so far it has met with encouraging response from employers.”
“In a tight labour market situation, ex-addicts should not have difficulty in getting employment. Unfortunately, there exists some prejudice on the part of many employers against ex-addicts. On the other hand, some of the ex-addicts are choosy about jobs. Some of them also fail to stay on the job because they are not adapted to the sudden freedom after detention in a drug rehabilitation centre. In order to prepare the ex-addicts more fully for total release so that they have a better chance of getting and continuing in employment after release, my Ministry has worked out a Day-Release Scheme. This scheme will bridge the gap between the strictly controlled regime in drug rehabilitation centres and the completely free environment outside. It is an extension of the current rehabilitation programme. Under the scheme, day-release camps will be set up. Inmates of drug rehabilitation centres who are considered ready for day-release will be transferred to the day-release camps. They will be found jobs outside the camps and be paid the same rates as other workers doing a similar job, including Central Provident Fund contributions. They have to return to camp every day after work when a urine sample will be taken for testing. If they are found to have abused drugs again or if they should breach other conditions of their day-release, such as not turning up at the place of work or found malingering at work, they will be sent back to the drug rehabilitation centres. The day-release camps will be run as half-way houses. They will have a more relaxed regime with more recreational facilities than in the drug rehabilitation centres. Also, SANA counsellors will be encouraged to visit the ex-addicts in the camps so as to establish a close rapport with them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Through Operation Ferret and other measures we have managed to contain the spread of drug addiction. However, as is the experience of other countries which face the drug abuse problem, recidivism is still high, Of 10,750 drug addicts placed under supervision after treatment and rehabilitation, 3,704 or 38.9% have relapsed. If we consider only those who were released two years ago or earlier, then as many as 70.8% relapsed during their two-year period of supervision. Therefore, our major preoccupation now is to reduce the rate of recidivism. It has, however, proved to be an intractable problem. This is primarily because an addict's psychological dependence on drugs cannot be overcome as easily as his physical dependence which can be got rid of in a relatively short time with treatment and rehabilitation. Psychological dependence is a more complex problem which requires much time and effort to overcome. If this psychological dependence on drugs is not completely removed, any personal setback or temptation that he encounters can result in a relapse. Some researchers have established that the most difficult period of adjustment for ex-addicts is the first two to three months after - their release from an institutionalised environment - in our case, the drug rehabilitation centres. It is during this period that they must be given maximum help in staying away from drugs. Unfortunately, many of them do not get regular employment during this crucial period. Since they are not meaningfully occupied for the greater part of the day, they are soon overwhelmed by boredom, frustration and a sense of inadequacy or even defeat. In such a state, ex-addicts are very prone to relapse.”
“The Act also makes temporary provisions for the prevention of strikes and lock-outs in essential services, especially in the water, gas and electricity services. These provisions are still necessary. The Act has contributed considerably to the maintenance of public order. It is still needed to further curb secret society activities and drug trafficking. It is therefore necessary to extend the provisions of the Act for a further period of five years. 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. MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.30 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, formerly known as the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, was brought into operation on 21st October, 1955, for an initial period of three years. It has since been extended several times and will lapse on 20th October, 1979. It is proposed to extend it for another five years with effect from that date. The Act provides for the maintenance of public safety, peace and good order, the prevention of strikes and lock-outs in essential services and the detention and supervision of persons associated with activities of a criminal nature. It has proved to be very useful in suppressing criminal activities associated with secret societies or organised syndicates where the application of the ordinary laws for the prosecution of the offenders in court is ineffective because witnesses are not prepared to give evidence in court for fear of reprisals. The effectiveness of the Act in curbing secret societies is shown by the decrease in the number of secret society incidents such as assaults, riots, gang clashes and murders. From a peak of 416 such incidents in 1959, the number fell to only 10 in 1978. The Act has also contributed significantly to the suppression of drug trafficking in Singapore. Over the past six years, 370 persons were detained for drug trafficking, but 311 of them were detained in the last 24 months when the battle against the drug menace reached a climax. It is the use of the powers of detention under the Act that has enabled the Government to move swiftly, and thus has contributed in no small measure to the successful disruption of the distribution of drugs in Singapore.”
“It is the first of a series of measures which we hope to introduce to make our commercial law more easily ascertainable and less dependent on legislative changes taking place in the UK. 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. CRIMINAL LAW (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.25 p.m.”
“a written law which serves the same or similar purpose or purposes as the UK Act. (5) Express provision is inserted to make it clear that the UK law which is to be held applicable in Singapore may be qualified by local circumstances. All these exceptions and qualifications are desirable to clarify the scope of section 5 and to ensure that it does not have any unintended or adverse effects here. I can assure hon. Members of this House that although the Bill is a short one its drafting has been far from easy. The Bill preserves the close connection between our commercial law and English commercial law. At the same time, it seeks to provide greater clarity and guidance in the interpretation of section 5 of the Civil Law Act and to ensure that the reception of English commercial law will be subject to certain limitations which are necessary and desirable. It does not, of course, attempt to achieve the impossible, i.e. to eliminate all problems of interpretation of the section. The Bill also seeks to repeal section 6 of the Civil Law Act which relates to the requirement that a contract for the sale of goods of the value of $100 or upwards must be evidenced in writing to be enforceable. This provision is outmoded and has no practical value today. The sum of $100 is quite insignificant today, and many contracts for the sale of goods exceeding this sum are daily entered into orally. There is no justification for rendering such contracts unenforceable merely because they are not evidenced in writing. In the UK this evidentiary requirement was done away with as long ago as 1954. This Bill may not excite great public interest because of its technical nature, as you can see, Mr Speaker, Sir. Nevertheless, it should prove to be a very useful measure for lawyers and businessmen.”
“Some of the legislative changes in the UK may not be quite appropriate to the needs and circumstances of Singapore; but under section 5, as it stands, we may find ourselves automatically bound by these legislative changes in the UK. There is, therefore, a definite and urgent need to re-examine section 5 closely not only with a view to reducing its uncertainty and obscurity but also to ensure that Singapore will not be automatically bound by legislative changes in the UK where these changes are not suitable to our needs and circumstances. Accordingly, a Working Committee of experts chaired by the Attorney-General studied and gave careful consideration to the problems arising from section 5. The Bill is the result of the recommendation of that Committee. The Bill amends section 5 in the following respects: (1) It makes clear that the reception under section 5 is only confined to English mercantile law and not extended, as was suggested in one Privy Council case, to English law as a whole. (2) It ensures that no law enacted or made in the UK which purports to give effect to a treaty or international agreement to which Singapore is not a party will be applicable here. Under the existing section, UK legislation giving effect to international treaties to which Singapore is not a party may conceivably be applicable here; this is clearly an unsatisfactory state of affairs. (3) Any UK law regulating the exercise of any business or activity by providing for registration, licensing or any other method of control or by imposition of penalties will be specifically excluded from application here. (4) No provision contained in a UK Act of Parliament will be imported here if there is a corresponding written law in force in Singapore, i.e.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The main purpose of this Bill is to amend section 5 of the Civil Law Act so as to clarify the scope of application of the section and to eliminate certain unintended and undesirable effects and doubts arising from the existing provision. Section 5 of the Civil Law Act is well known to lawyers as it provides for the general reception in Singapore of English mercantile law. It is a provision which is of vital importance to our business community. Yet it is one of the most difficult and complicated provisions in our statute book to construe. In spite of a number of judicial decisions, including two Privy Council cases, there is considerable uncertainty as to the precise scope of application of the section. This is not surprising as even the two Privy Council cases were incompatible with each other. Because of the uncertainty as to the precise scope of application of section 5, it has become difficult at times to say whether a particular piece of English legislation is or is not applicable to Singapore. While this might not have been of such great consequence in the past, it is increasingly becoming a serious problem, especially after the entry of Britain into the European Economic Community in 1973. There is and will be an increasing tendency as a result of such entry to harmonise English commercial law with European Common Market law on like subjects. Even on the domestic plane, the tempo of legislative activity in the United Kingdom in the field of commercial law has greatly accelerated in recent years. To give just one example, a great deal of complicated legislation has been enacted in the field of consumer law in the UK in the past few years.”
“Sir, as I have said, each case will have to be treated on its own merits, There are a number of factors to be considered. If a sponsor has an aged parent, one of the factors we will have to consider is whether, after having granted the aged parent an entry permit, the aged parent is likely to become a liability to the State. The other factor to consider is whether the aged parent has got relatives or persons who can look after him. Sometimes we also do give consideration on grounds of compassion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the grant of an entry permit for permanent residence in Singapore is governed by the provisions of the Immigration (Prohibition of Entry) Order, 1973. It is not a right but a privilege, and each case is processed and decided upon on its merits. Family roots are only one of the factors taken into consideration when assessing applications for permanent residence. Much will depend on whether an applicant has a skill or qualification which is needed in Singapore and can contribute or has contributed to the well-being of the country. Generally, applications from professionals or skilled persons for permanent residence are considered favourably. Male applicants who are of National Service age are also considered favourably provided they sign up for regular service in the SAF.”
“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. STATE IMMUNITY BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.30 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of the Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Bill, 1979, is to remove the requirement to register joint surnames for illegitimate children. Section 10(1) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act requires an illegitimate child to have the surnames of both the father and mother if they are joint informants of the birth. This provision was introduced more than 40 years ago with the enactment of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act on 1st July, 1938. However, it was not strictly enforced until October, 1973, when the Registry of Births and Deaths began to check the marriage certificates of parents because of the marriage restriction policy for work permit holders. From October 1973 to April 1979, 1,109 children were registered with joint surnames. Joint surnames are an unnecessary stigma to children born illegitimately. The Amendment Bill before the House will enable an illegitimate child to be registered under the father's surname if the father is an informant of the birth. Where the father is not an informant, the mother's surname will be given to the child. This is to prevent mothers from fraudulently declaring a person to be the child's father. The Bill will also enable any parent or guardian of an illegitimate child, registered under either the joint surnames of the father and the mother or the surname of the mother, to change the child's surname to that of the father where the father was an informant of the birth of the child. When the child comes of age at 21 years, he may apply for the change himself. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and com mined to a Committee of the whole House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, motorists should only sound the horns of their vehicles to prevent an accident. Sounding of horns unnecessarily is an offence under the Minor Offences Act and the offenders may be liable to a fine of up to 950. Such an offence may also be dealt with under the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Rules and the Road Traffic Act where a fine of up to $1,000 or an imprisonment of up to three months can be imposed. The Traffic Police and the Registry of Vehicles will ask the School Bus Owners' Association to cooperate by reminding school bus drivers not to misuse the horn as this will cause noise nuisance, particularly in the early morning hours in housing estates. Action will be taken against those who persist in this inconsiderate act. To educate the motoring public on the proper use of horns, the Traffic Police will highlight this subject in one of their future road safety columns in the press. HAWKERS AT FOOD CENTRES (Individual Water Meters) 11. Mr Ho Kah Leong asked the Minister for the Environment whether the Public Utilities Board will consider installation of one water meter to each hawker at food centres if the hawkers are prepared to bear the cost of installation. Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, a hawker may be given an individual meter if his consumption of water per month is over 20 cubic metres and if he will pay for it. But this practice is not encouraged by the PUB because if every hawker in the market has an individual meter, it means that we would have a maze of pipes running all over the market and all over the stalls. NEW RESERVOIR IN NEE SOON 12. Dr Koh Lip Lin asked the Minister for the Environment whether and when a new reservoir will be built in Nee Soon.”
“Sir, first of all, drug trafficking and drug addiction are two different offences. Drug trafficking is a criminal offence in the sense that a person is trying to sell drugs to drug addicts; in other words, to make money out of human misery. Drug addiction is another matter. Although it is a crime, it is, of course, of a much lesser degree. In fact, as far as drug addiction is concerned, instead of prosecuting the drug addicts in court, we prefer to send them to drug rehabilitation centres for treatment and rehabilitation. In other words, they would not be convicted of a criminal offence, particularly the first offenders. In fact, from the figures I have mentioned, the vast majority of the drug addicts have been sent to drug rehabilitation centres for treatment and rehabilitation instead of prosecuting them in court for sentence and imprisonment. The drug addicts who were prosecuted were mainly foreigners. Sir, I hope I have answered the Member's question. TOOTING BY SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS (Measures to prohibit) 10. Mr Yeo Choo Kok asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether his Ministry has any plans to prohibit the sounding of horns by school bus drivers when picking up students in the early morning hours, especially in housing estates, so that noise pollution level can be reduced to enable residents to have a peaceful and quiet morning.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I informed the House at the last Parliamentary sitting on 20th March, 1979, that the spread of heroin abuse in Singapore had been contained. Since then the situation has improved further. The Member for Khe Bong has asked for figures of persons convicted in court for drug offences. To give a complete picture, it is necessary to include figures of drug addicts sent to Drug Rehabilitation Centres as well as drug traffickers and pushers who are detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. The figures for drug addicts are as follows: No.of No.of Year persons sent persons Total to DRCs convicted 1977 7,084 1,539 8,623 1978 5,776 1,704 7,480 1979 774 428 1,202 (1st quarter) The figures for drug traffickers and pushers are as follows: No. No. Year detained convicted Total 1977 106 234 340 1978 178 89 267 1979 27 6 33 (1st quarter)”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1979 to 31st March, 1980, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow. Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Chua Sian Chin]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock p.m.”
“Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow?”
“Sir, it is not a different category altogether. It is because they know that if they apply for permission to get married they will not be granted. That is why they have gone across the Causeway to get married. It is the same. If we relax on this regulation, we are just allowing them to circumvent the work permit policy. Although I am not in charge of work permit policy, I would like to point this out. It is not a different category. It is the same. If the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is in charge of the Immigration Department, issues Social Visit Passes to them, we would be undermining the work permit policy of the Ministry of Labour, which I think is not the right thing to do.”