E.W. Barker
Singapore
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a simple Bill which seeks to amend section 33 of the Land Acquisition Act on the amount of compensation payable to owners of land compulsorily acquired under the Act.”
“For the five-year period from 1st July, 1981 to 30th June, 1986, the HDB demolished a total of 8,098 units. As the HDB's new accounting system was only implemented from 1st April, 1985, the Board does not have ready information on the value of flats demolished prior to 1st April, 1985. RELOCATION OF CREMATORIUMS 4.”
“The HDB did not allocate any MP's office to the previous PAP MPs for Anson and Potong Pasir constituencies. NUMBER OF H.D.B. UNITS DEMOLISHED 3.”
“I would not know. Why don't you ask them? I don't know. Sir, to put things in a nutshell, it is the legal profession amongst all the professions that help in the administration of Singapore. Doctors help to cure you of diseases.”
“I am not saying it's wrong. I am not telling you stories. I am relating. So they decided to take us on. When we went into Select Committee, the first day and the later part of the second day, there was confrontation between the Committee and the lawyers.”
“As the Member for Anson would know, the Minister for Law is not in charge of prosecutions or the conduct of any criminal proceedings in court, nor does he give any directives on these matters.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,152 lines we hold for E.W. Barker, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 44.
“A new transitional provision in the Bill provides that in respect of such buildings used wholly or partly for industrial or commercial purposes and which have been completed, or where planning approval was granted, before the enactment of the Bill, the competent authority shall not require the developer to incorporate any car parking space therein as part of the common property of the building if the developer does not agree to do so. Sir, I beg to move, Question put, and agreed to, Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. RECLAMATION AT PASIR PANJANG 3.05 p.m.”
“It was brought to the Committee's attention that life in a multistorey building would be unbearable if there were persistent violations of these by-laws which were enacted to ensure the comfort and well-being of the occupants. The Committee also decided to add a new provision in the Bill to exempt an instrument of transfer lodged pursuant to the new section 32B, 32C or 32D from payment of stamp duty. This will lessen some of the financial burdens which a developer would have to bear when he makes a transfer of the interest in the land on which flats have been built to the owners of the flats. In all such cases the value of the developer's interest in the land is nominal. Clause 25 has been amended to empower the Commissioner of Buildings to have more effective powers to deal with management corporations which are not run properly and to empower the Minister to make regulations to prescribe the composition of the management council. The Committee also decided to add a new provision to prohibit developers from levying maintenance charges without the approval of the Commissioner of Buildings from the time the building is completed until such time as the management corporation takes over the maintenance of the building. This would prevent any attempt to impose excessive charges. Hon. Members are aware that in many high-rise buildings there are multi-storey car parks. In all these buildings which have been completed before the introduction of the Bill, the car parks are owned and controlled by the developers who, at the time of the sale of the housing units in the building, did not pass on the construction costs of the car parks to the purchasers.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." The Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill was committed to a Select Committee on 19th August, 1975. The Select Committee received nine representations and heard oral evidence from all the representors. Some of the contributions were valuable and a number of suggestions have been accepted. The Select Committee's Report was published and presented to this House on 16th February, 1976, as Paper Parl. 1 of 1976. Sir, the Bill, as now tabled before the House, incorporates the amendments which have been recommended by the Select Committee. I will not burden Honourable Members with technical details but would like to draw their attention to a number of amendments and new provisions in the Bill. The Committee decided to add a new section 15E to enable a subsidiary proprietor of a strata lot in a subdivided building to make an application to the court to direct a management corporation or management corporations to - (a) transfer a part of the common property; or (b) accept a transfer of any land or part thereof or any lot so that the land or part thereof or lot shall form part of the common property; or (c) amalgamate the common property of two or more management corporations. It was brought to the Committee's attention that many members of some management corporations are apathetic to their responsibilities, and it was therefore felt necessary to allow a dissatisfied subsidiary proprietor to apply to Court for redress. The Committee also decided to amend clause 17 to make it an offence for a subsidiary proprietor to refuse to comply with the by-laws set out in the Second Schedule to the Land Titles Act. The maximum punishment for contravention is a fine not exceeding $1,000.”
“Sir, I will have to look further into the circumstances of the particular case. I cannot give the Member a direct answer except for the little facts that I know at the moment, that is. $500 quoted refers to a farm lot with an area of about four acres, which is quite considerable. SELETAR ROAD/YIO CHU KANG ROAD/JALAN KAYU (Improvement of traffic system) 3. Mr Hwang Soo Jin asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Education whether, in the light of rapid population build-up in Seletar Hills Estate, he will direct the relevant authorities to give urgent attention to improving the traffic system at the Seletar Road/Via Chu Kang Road/Jalan Kayu junction with a view to minimising the increasing number of collisions between vehicles some of which have resulted in deaths and serious personal injuries recently. The Minister for Home Affairs and Education (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Mr Speaker. Sir. Police records show that 22 accidents took place at this junction in 1 973, 9 in 1974 and 18 in 1975. Of the 49 accidents, 2 were fatal. 4 resulted in serious injuries and 13 involved slight injuries only. The remaining 30 accidents were minor and did not result in any injury. The Public Works Department plans to widen Yio Chu Kang Road and convert it into a dual lane-carriageway with centre dividers in 1977. This project when completed will make the above-mentioned junction safer for motorists.”
“In the light of the Member for Jalan Kayu's representations, I have directed the Commissioner of Lands and the Licences Committee to liberally allow waiver of transfer fees as well as retention of the old rates of Temporary Occupation Licence fees, where investigations reveal that the circumstances of any particular case so warrant.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Land Office has, since 1962, been charging a fee for transfers of holdings held on Temporary Occupation Licences. The transfer fee then was $100 for the first acre and $50 for every additional acre or part of an acre. The imposition of a transfer fee is designed to discourage frequent transfers of such holdings and the abuses arising therefrom. It is not unusual for large sums of money to be paid as consideration between licensees and purchasers for transfers of such holdings. The highest amount ascertained by the Land Office was $15,000 per acre for an area of 2.2 acres of land. In 1973 there were 330 applications. In 1974, the number was 439. To deter too frequent applications and to prevent speculation, the transfer fee was revised in October 1974 to $200 for the first acre and $100 for every additional acre. In addition, on approval, the Temporary Occupation Licence fees were revised. For holdings in the rural areas, the revised fee is $72 per acre per annum. That these increases are not excessive is borne out by the fact that applications for transfers increased from 439 in 1974 to 552 in 1975. The transfer fee of $500 quoted by the Member for Jalan Kayu refers to one particular farm lot with an area of about four acres. Under the current practice, the transfer fee may be waived and the old rates of Temporary Occupation Licence fees retained, at the discretion of the Licences Committee where it is ascertained that hardship will be caused to the next-of-kin, especially those in receipt of public assistance from the Social Welfare Department.”
“Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of approximately 10.93 hectares of the foreshore and seabed at Pulau Damar Laut, Jurong, as shown coloured green on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 10/75" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed."-[Mr E. W. Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six minutes to Seven o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. *The motion reads as follows: `That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of approximately 10.93 hectares of the foreshore and seabed at Pulau Damar Laut, Jurong, as shown coloured green on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 10/75" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.' Sir, Pulau Damar Laut, about 15.7 hectares in area and shown coloured yellow on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 10/75", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the infor mation of hon. Members, was alienated to the Jurong Town Corporation in 1962 for the extension of the Jurong Industrial Estate. The Corporation now proposes to reclaim about 10.93 hectares of the foreshore and seabed at this island as shown coloured green on the plan for the future extension of the Jurong Port. The reclamation, which is the first stage of the development of the island, will be undertaken by the Corporation as agents of the Government. It is expected to take about 1 1/2 years to complete at a cost of about $2.5 million. Fill for this reclamation will be obtained by levelling the existing hills on the island. The second stage of the development is still under study by the Corporation. Under the second stage, it is envisaged that further reclamation may be necessary and wharves may be constructed at the periphery of the reclamation. On completion of the reclamation, the reclaimed land will be proclaimed as State land and will be alienated to the Corporation on terms and conditions to be agreed with the Commissioner of Lands. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, section 14(1) of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Chapter 112) empowers a police officer not below the rank of a sergeant, without warrant, to enter and search any premises, vehicle or individual if he suspects that any evidence of the commission of an offence is likely to be found on such premises, vehicle or individual, and may seize any evidence so found. It is proposed to amend the proviso to the section to enable a police officer below the rank of sergeant to exercise similar powers if he has good reasons to believe that, by reason of the delay which may be caused by referring the case to his superior officer, any such evidence is likely to be removed. The Bill also seeks to amend section 22 of the Act to bring it in line with a proposal to amend the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 113), which has just also been read the Second time, by deleting the legal requirement to give caution to a person under arrest before he is interrogated by the police. Like the other two Bills which had their Second Reading today, Sir, it is also proposed to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Sir, I do not propose to deal with the arguments here but to leave them to the Select Committee. But I would like to correct a misapprehension held by the Member for Telok Blangah who says that it is obligatory for the court to accept the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, and he quotes clause 8. Clause 8 says nothing of that kind. It says: `An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and any rule of law or practice whereby at a trial it is obligatory for the court to warn itself about convicting the accused on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is hereby abrogated.' What is abrogated is the requirement of a warning. It does not make it obligatory for the court to accept the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. It can, but it is not obligatory. Sir, I would like to thank both Members for their contribution and hope to see them in Select Committee. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, "That the Evidence (Amendment) Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection."-[Mr E. W. Barker]. CRIMINAL LAW (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 6.25 p.m.”
“The law at present requires the witness who has refreshed his memory to produce and show to the adverse party the document used by him to refresh his memory and he may be cross-examined on the contents of such document but the document shall not be admissible as evidence of the facts stated therein. The above proposals, however, are subject to certain safeguards for it is provided in subsection (5) of section 145 in clause 9 that in estimating the weight, if any, to be attached to a statement admissible under this clause, regard shall be had to all the circumstances and, in particular, to its contemporaneity or otherwise and to the question whether any person who was in a position to do so had any reason to conceal or misrepresent the facts. Subsection (6) proposes that a statement admissible by virtue of this clause shall not be capable of corroborating the evidence given by the maker of the statement. Sir, like the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill, it is the intention to refer this Bill to Select Committee where representations will be welcome and will be given careful consideration. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 6.18 p.m.”
“' The view that the present requirement is wrong is also in accordance with the views of the learned members of the Criminal Law Revision Committee of the United Kingdom whose Eleventh Report on Evidence (General) was presented to the United Kingdom Parliament in June 1972. It is felt `that it should be a matter for the judge's discretion whether or not to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice and as long as the judge recognises who are the accused's accomplices in the case before him and treats their evidence with caution there should be no danger of a miscarriage of justice. There appears also to be no real need for retaining the rule that certain witnesses are incapable of corroborating other witnesses. Clause 9 proposes that a previous statement made by a witness should be admissible not only to support or impugn his credibility as a witness but as evidence of the fact stated in it. The present law has caused difficulty when evidence is given that a witness made a previous statement inconsistent with his evidence given in court. Evidence that the witness did so is admissible but it is admissible not in order to prove the truth of what was said in the previous statement but only in order to neutralise, the effect of the evidence given in court by the maker of the statement. Many regard this as too subtle a distinction. Similarly, where a document used by a witness to refresh his memory is proved, it is proposed that the statement in that document shall be admissible as evidence of the facts stated in it.”
“But as long ago as 1836 when it was only a rule of practice that a special direction should be given as to the evidence of accomplices, Henry Joy, Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, published a book, On the Evidence of Accomplices, in the course of which he wrote: `How the practice which at present prevails, could ever have grown into a general regulation, must be matter of surprise to every person who considers its nature. Why the case of an accomplice should require a particular rule for itself: why it should not, like that of every other witness of whose credit there is an impeachment, he left to the unfettered discretion of the judge, to deal with it as the circumstances of each particular case nay require, it seems difficult to explain. Why a fixed unvarying rule should be applied to a subject which admits of such endless variety as the credit of witnesses, seems hardly reconcilable to the principles of reason. (But, that a judge should come prepared to reject altogether the testimony of a competent witness as unworthy of credit, before he had even seen that witness; before he had observed his look, his manner, his demeanour; before he had an opportunity of considering the consistency and probability of his story; before he had known the nature of the crime of which he was to accuse himself, or the temptation which led to it, or the contrition with which it was followed;) that a judge, I say, should come prepared beforehand to advise the jury to reject without consideration such evidence, even though judge and jury should be perfectly convinced of its truth, seems to he a violation of the principles of common sense, the dictates of morality, and the sanctity of a juror's oath.”
“g, receivers have been held to be accomplices of the thieves from whom they received the goods although the receiver was not necessarily a party to the substantive crime of theft. The common law rules have the great disadvantage' of being sometimes difficult to apply owing to technical distinctions, for example as to what kinds of evidence may he corroboration and as to whether a person is an accomplice. These difficulties have caused many mistaken rulings at trials and consequent quashings of convictions. One disadvantage in particular is that a conviction may have to be quashed if the judge holds that a piece of evidence is capable of being corroboration but the appellate court holds that it is not capable of being so. Convictions have been quashed even in cases where there was ample evidence to convict the accused because the appellate court considered that the judge might have found that the evidence was corroborated when in fact it was not, and so have thought that the danger referred to did not exist. The reasons for exercising caution in accepting the evidence of accomplices are obvious:- Firstly, the accomplice being a criminal, his evidence is impugned; Secondly, an accomplice has a strong motive to remove suspicion from himself by fixing it on another; Thirdly, if he has a spite against the accused, then, knowing all the circumstances of the crime, he will have little difficulty in making convincing false charges against him, although the accused is innocent.”
“On the same principle, the accused should be allowed no privilege against incriminating his wife except in relation to an offence going to his credibility as a witness. Clauses 5, 8 and 10 of the Bill seek to abrogate the common law rule, making it obligatory for a judge to give a warning of the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. Since corroboration is not required as a matter of law, it follows that the conviction will not be quashed merely because of absence of corroboration; but if the judge does not warn himself the conviction will be quashed, even if there is corroboration, unless the appeal can be dismissed on the ground that "no miscarriage of justice has actually occurred". Since evidence in corroboration must be "independent testimony which affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime", it follows that a witness cannot corroborate himself. A witness whose evidence requires corroboration, or in whose case corroboration has to be looked for under the common law rules, cannot be corroborated by a similar witness. Thus an unsworn child cannot corroborate another and one accomplice cannot corroborate another. Members may well ask, who is an accomplice? There is no legal definition of the word. But on any view, persons are accomplices who are participes criminis in respect of the actual crime charged, whether as principals or accessories before or after the fact or persons committing, procuring or aiding and abetting. This is the natural and primary meaning of the term "accomplice." But persons falling strictly outside the ambit of this category have been held to be accomplices; e.”
“The clause makes it clear that a co-accused, as well as the prosecution, may cross-examine the accused to rebut his claim to be of good disposition or reputation and may adduce evidence for this purpose. However, clause 6 proposes to restrict the right of the prosecution or of a co-accused to cross-examine the, accused about misconduct other than that involved in the offence charged on the ground that he has made imputations against the witnesses against him. The court shall not permit a question tending to reveal that the accused has committed or has been charged with or convicted or acquitted of any offence or that he is a person of bad disposition or reputation unless it is the opinion of the court that the question is relevant to the accused's credibility as a witness. However, this restriction does not apply to a question tending to prove that the accused has committed the offence charged or to a question which will enable a co-accused to reveal a fact which would prove that he is not guilty of any offence with which he is jointly charged with the accused. Clause 7 restricts in two ways the right of the accused, if he gives evidence, to claim the privilege against self-incrimination or against incriminating his spouse. The proposal is that the accused should have no privilege against self-incrimination in the case of a question about the offence charged or about any other offence which is admissible as standing directly or indirectly to show that he committed the offence charged but should have the privilege in respect of other offences which are relevant to his credibility as a witness. But no privilege should be allowed if the accused has claimed to be of good disposition or reputation.”
“Subsection (3) of section 34B provides that in estimating the weight, if any, to be attached to a statement produced by a computer, regard shall be had to all the circumstances and, in particular, to its contemporaneity or otherwise and to the question whether any person who was in a position to do so had any reason to conceal or misrepresent the facts. In 1960, section 54 of our Evidence Ordinance was amended to take away the accused's immunity from cross-examination about his other misconduct if the accused has personally or by his advocate and solicitor asked questions of the witnesses for the prosecution with a view to establishing his own good character, or has given evidence of his good character, or the nature and conduct of the defence is such as to involve imputations on the character of the prosecution witness, or the accused has given evidence against any other person charged with the same offence. Modern criminals, however, have developed a practice of giving the impression that they are respectable persons while avoiding taking any course which clearly enables the court to hold that the accused has personally or by his advocate and solicitor asked questions of witnesses for the prosecution with a view to establishing his own good character, or has given evidence of his good character within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 54 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, section 54 of the Act does not make it clear that the prosecution can adduce evidence to prove that the accused is not of good character and at what stage of the proceedings it may do so. Clause 4 of the Bill, therefore, proposes to clarify the situation and to deal with cases in which it is hinted indirectly, that the accused is a respectable person.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Evidence Act needs to be amended to bring it into line with the changes proposed for the Criminal Procedure Code. The Bill also seeks to clarify certain sections of the Act relating to the accused's character and his right to claim the privilege against self-incrimination and against incriminating his spouse. Clause 3 of the Bill provides for the admissibility of statements produced by computers. It seems desirable to include this provision in the Bill because the increasing use of computers by the Post Office, statutory bodies, banks and business firms to store certain kinds of information will make it more difficult to prove certain matters, such as cheque frauds, unless it is made possible for this to be done from computers. Admissibility is subject to strict conditions, necessary to ensure that the information is reliable, as to the regular supply of information to the computer and to its proper working. Subsection (4) of section 34A in clause 3 of the Bill allows evidence by certificate in order to identify a document produced by the computer and to give particulars of its working, but subsection (5) of section 34A enables the court for special reason to require oral evidence to be given of these matters. Section 34B in clause 3 contains various supplementary provisions relating to proof of documents, to the drawing of inferences, for the purpose of deciding admissibility, from the circumstances in which a statement was made and from the form and contents of a document, and to the weight to be attached to a statement admissible under section 34A.”
“The opportunity has been taken to amend other sections of the Code to correct existing mistakes and anomalies as well as to expedite the administration of justice as when an accused wishes to plead guilty in the High Court. It is proposed to refer the Bill to Select Committee where all representations will be given careful consideration. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 5.05 p.m.”
“The rule, however, is subject to a large number of exceptions, the best known of which are informal admissions and confessions, dying declarations, statements in public documents and some statements admissible as being part of the res gestae. But there are many other exceptions, some by common law and some by statute. Professor Cross has pointed out that the admission of certain kinds of evidence "can only be explained on the footing that there are many more exceptions to the hearsay rule than is commonly supposed". The present law has caused a great deal of trouble owing to the difficulty of deciding whether a statement is hearsay, and, if so, whether it is admissible under any of the exceptions to the rule. The difficulty is further compounded by the differences between the English law of evidence and our law which is based on the Indian Evidence Act. The scheme that the Bill proposes has the following purposes:- (1) to admit all hearsay evidence likely to be valuable to the greatest extent possible without undue complication or delay to the proceedings; (2) to ensure that evidence should continue to be given for the most part orally by allowing hearsay evidence only if the maker of the statement cannot be called or it is desirable to supplement his oral evidence; and (3) to include necessary safeguards against the danger of manufactured hearsay evidence. The proposals in this Bill relating to hearsay evidence adopt many of the recommendations contained in the Criminal Law Revision Committee's Eleventh Report. Certain modifications have been made to these proposals after considering the views expressed by the General Council of the Bar of England and Wales and the Council of the Law Society of England in their memoranda.”
“We have gone even further than that by allowing him to tender or read out from the dock a written statement prepared by his lawyer. It does not appear to be in the interest of justice that the accused should have the advantages I have just mentioned, for what they may be worth. Clauses 10, 14 and 16 of the Bill therefore seek to change the procedure in trials before the Subordinate Courts and the High Court, abolishing the right of an accused to make an unsworn statement about the facts instead of giving evidence on oath or affirmation. If the accused refuses to give evidence on oath or affirmation the court may draw inferences as appear proper from the refusal, if without good cause. However, the accused shall not be compelled to give evidence on his own behalf. Clause 11 proposes to require the accused to give notice to the Court or to the Public Prosecutor of particulars of any alibi, if such is his defence. If he does not give such notice, he shall not without the leave of the court adduce evidence in support of the alibi at his trial. In 1972 the Criminal Procedure Code was amended so as to require an accused to give notice of his alibi at a preliminary inquiry, but no such requirement was imposed in respect of a summary trial in the Magistrates' and District Courts. Clause 23 of the Bill seeks to make radical changes to the rule against hear say evidence. This rule is summarised in the third edition of Professor Cross's "Evidence" on page 387 as follows: `Express or implied assertions of persons other than the witness who is testifying, and assertions in documents produced to the court when no witness is testifying, are inadmissible as evidence of the truth of that which was `asserted.'.”
“However, if an accused who has a criminal record wishes to make imputations against the character of the witnesses for the prosecution, it may be to his advantage to make an unsworn statement instead of giving evidence on oath; for in the latter case, but not the former, he will be liable to have his criminal record brought out by the prosecution. In England, the right to make an unsworn statement derived from the time when the accused was not allowed legal representation (except in the case of misdemeanours), but for some years before the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, the accused was allowed to make an unsworn statement about The facts whether or , not he was legally represented. It might have been expected that, when the 1898 Act allowed him to give evidence on oath, it would have abolished the right to make an unsworn statement as no longer serving any useful purpose. Instead the Act expressly preserved the right in keeping with the policy of the Act that pressure should not be put on the accused to take advantage of the new right to give evidence on oath. The learned members of the Criminal Law Revision Committee observed: `We think that the time has come to reverse this policy.... We are strongly of the opinion that the right to make an unsworn statement about the facts instead of giving evidence on oath or affirmation should be abolished. Whatever justification there may have been for preserving the right in 1898: we think that nowadays the accused, if he gives evidence, should do so in the same way as other witnesses and be subject to cross-examination.' We have not only followed the English practice by giving the accused the right to make an unsworn statement.”
“However, serious consideration has been given to these criticisms, and the proposals of the Criminal Law Revision Committee have been modified to suit the system of criminal justice operating in Singapore and to provide further safeguards. For instance, clause 5 of the Bill seeks to amend section 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code in such a way that even though an accused person is advised to disclose his defence, if the making of any statement by an accused person appears to the court to be caused by an inducement, threat or promise proceeding from a person in authority, the court may in its discretion refuse to admit such statement or allow it to be used in cross-examination or for the purpose of impeaching his credit. And clause l6 of the Bill does not seek to adopt the recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee that the accused's failure to give evidence on oath or affirmation at his trial should be capable of providing corroboration in law of any evidence given against him. Another long standing practice which the Bill seeks to abolish is the accused's right to make an unsworn statement from the dock in his own defence instead of giving evidence on oath or affirmation. Although the legal status of an unsworn statement is that of a kind of inferior evidence because it is not given on oath or affirmation, an accused who has something to hide and does not wish to be subject to cross-examination would invariably take advantage of his right to make an unsworn statement from the dock.”
“In this context I must point out that we have no jury in Singapore and we have to assume that our magistrates and judges can empathise. it is relevant to note here that whereas a very high proportion of the criminal cases heard in the magistrates' courts in England and Wales are tried by lay justices, all the magistrates in Singapore are today legally trained. Another criticism is that there is little to protect the vast majority of alleged offenders who are to be required in a situation of stress to formulate defences to as yet an unspecified charge, or risk having adverse inferences drawn against them at a later, and perhaps more critical stage. But clause S of the Bill requires the accused to be served with a notice in writing setting out the charge to which he has to answer. He does not have to formulate defences in relation to anything else he may have done. This provision does not appear in the draft Bill prepared by the Criminal Law Revision Committee. Another criticism is to the effect that it is quite wrong that the accused's silence when interrogated or charged should be capable of being regarded as corroborative of other evidence implicating the accused. However, under the present law the suspect who tells a lie may be regarded as providing cogent evidence against himself capable of amounting to corroboration. An extension of this rule to cover the accused's silence when confronted with a specified charge should not therefore cause undue alarm. Whether his silence does or does not amount to corroboration must depend on all the circumstances of the particular case and this is precisely what the Bill states.”
“To forbid it seems to us to be contrary to common sense and, without helping the innocent, to give an unnecessary advantage to the guilty. Hardened criminals often take advantage of the present rule to refuse to answer any questions at all, and this may greatly hamper the police and even bring their investigations to a halt. Therefore the abolition of the restriction would help justice.' It is as much in the public interest that a guilty person should be convicted as it is that an innocent person should be acquitted. If the proposal to allow adverse inferences to be drawn from the accused's silence is accepted, it follows that the requirements of the so-called Judges' Rules contained in Schedule E to the Criminal Procedure Code to caution a suspect that he is not obliged to say anything must be abolished or replaced by different kinds of warnings or intimations. The Bill therefore proposes that after the accused has been charged with an offence he should be served with a notice in writing advising him that adverse inferences may be drawn from his failure to mention a fact on which he is going to rely at his trial. The United Kingdom Government has not taken any steps to introduce legislation based on the recommendations of their Criminal Law Revision Committee but their report has been debated in the House of Lords, and the Council of the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar of England and Wales have submitted memoranda on it. The recommendation to restrict the right of silence and to abolish the Judges' Rules attracted the most severe criticism. Some of the comments contained in the memoranda of the Law Society and the Bar Council have been found to be not relevant in the Singapore context.”
“Experience has shown that determined criminals are not sufficiently deterred by merely enhancing the punishments for various offences. A greater deterrent would be to increase the chances of their conviction when they are apprehended and, with this in mind, it has been decided through this Amendment Bill to adopt certain of the recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee of the United Kingdom whose report was presented to the U.K. Parliament in June 1972. The Bill proposes to restrict greatly the so-called "right of silence" enjoyed by suspects when interrogated by the police or by anyone charged with the duty of investigating offences. By the "right of silence" in this connection I mean the rule that if the suspect, when interrogated, omits to mention some fact which would exculpate him but keeps this back till the trial, the court may not infer that his evidence on this issue at the trial is untrue. Under the proposals contained in clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill, it will be permissible to draw this inference if the circumstances justify it. The accused will still have the "right of silence" in the sense that it is no offence to refuse to answer questions or tell his story when interrogated; but if he chooses to remain silent, he will risk `having an adverse inference drawn against him at his trial and the failure may, on the basis of such inference, be treated as capable of amounting to corroboration of any evidence given against him. The Criminal Law Revision Committee in its report remarked. `In our opinion it is wrong that it should not be permissible for the jury or magistrates' court to draw whatever inferences are reasonable from the failure of the accused, when interrogated, to mention a defence which `he puts forward at his trial.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Prisons Reorganisation Committee in its Report submitted to the Government last year observed that sentences of corrective training on young offenders who show signs of embarking on a lifetime of crime and sentences of preventive detention on habitual criminals are rarely passed by our courts. The Committee recommended therefore that judicial officers in dealing with offenders should be compelled to consider passing a sentence of either corrective training or preventive detention. The Committee further recommended that the courts should also be empowered to impose caning in addition to sentences of corrective training or preventive detention. The Committee noted that, under the existing section 12 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a sentence of corrective training could range from two to four years but under section 3(1) of the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Act, the permissible range of a sentence of corrective training is three to seven years. The Committee recommended that the range of a sentence of corrective training under the Criminal Procedure Code should also be three to seven years. The Committee also recommended that the Criminal Procedure Code be amended so as to - (a) enhance the jurisdiction of the District Courts by empowering District Judges to pass sentences of up to five years for first offenders and up to ten years for habitual offenders; and (b) empower the Magistrates' Courts to pass sentences of up to two years on first offenders. Clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill seek to amend the Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to these recommendations.”
“Resolved, "That the Residential Property Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection."-[Mr E. W. Barker]. CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.50 p.m.”
“Clause 21 sets out the position of housing developers who, before purchasing an estate or interest in any residential property, will be required to obtain from the Controller of Housing a "qualifying certificate". The Minister's power to exempt, which is contained in clause 22, would be exercised in circumstances which warrant exempting any person, body or property who or which would otherwise come within the ambit of this legislation. The savings provision at clause 23 makes it clear that the Act is not applicable in certain specific instances. For example, foreign persons are not prevented from entering into a tenancy agreement for the occupation of residential property so long as the agreement does not exceed a term of seven years at any one time. Further, a permanent resident married to a citizen is not precluded from purchasing a flat or house sold under Part IV of the Housing and Development Act (Chapter 271) if the Board has consented to such purchase. The general penalty provided in the Bill for any contravention or failure to comply with any of the provisions of the Bill for which no penalty is expressly provided is, on conviction, a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both such fine and imprisonment. Before I conclude I would, once more, like to emphasize that the Bill is to be referred to a Select Committee, that adequate time will be given for the Bill to be studied, and further that all represen- tations made to the Select Committee will be given very careful consideration. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.”
“Representations thereto on every aspect of the Bill would be welcome as we are anxious that the legislation which is finally enacted should be workable and beneficial to the Republic as a whole. It is possible, for instance, that representations may be received on the effect on the property market of the implementation of clauses 4 and 5. Could all the relatively expensive residential properties appearing on the market within this period as a result of this provision be beyond the reach of most Singapore citizens, particularly in this present recessional state which is so vastly different from the economic situation obtaining in 1973? Could our economists and financial and property experts advise whether there is or is not a danger of foreign companies being unable to sell choice residential properties they are legally required to sell to Singapore citizens within the required period? Should we therefore exercise caution and keep in abeyance or suspense clauses 4 and 5 and related, clauses and not bring them into operation until a later date? The commencement clause, that is clause 1, would then need to be amended and some tidying up done at the Select Committee stage to render that clause accurate. Perhaps these are unnecessary fears but changed economic conditions do warrant some caution and a careful appraisal of these and other provisions in the Bill. The position of diplomatic and consular missions and religious groups in Singapore (as stated at clause 20) is that they will not be required to follow the formal procedure for obtaining approval as required under clause 16 but will nonetheless have to "seek the permission in writing of the Minister" before purchasing residential property.”
“Foreign persons who are permanent residents or who are of economic benefit to Singapore or who have professional qualifications or experience advantageous to Singapore may be granted approval to purchase residential property for their own occupation as dwelling houses. Similarly, foreign companies which are of economic benefit to Singapore and intend to purchase or retain residential property for occupation by their key personnel, may also be granted such approval. Turning now to clause 14, we find that it follows the intent of the first press statement in providing that residential properties may not be purchased or acquired by a citizen or an approved purchaser as a nominee of a foreign person, but departs from the press statement in not providing in the Bill that the nominee citizen is to be charged income tax on the value of the property. Apart from anything else, such a "taxing" provision could be rendered ineffective or easily circumvented by the Singapore citizen disposing of the residential property in question and pocketing the proceeds and there would be no means whereby the Government could recover such proceeds. A better approach, it is thought, is to provide that any citizen, approved purchaser or foreign person who contravenes this provision should be liable to the general penalty set out in clause 25. It will thus be seen that Government's initial thoughts on the method of implementation have not been carried through where more appropriate methods have subsequently emerged. Further amendments may also be necessary in the light of fresh information laid before the Select Committee.”
“It would seem to be harsh and unfair to oblige foreign investors to dispose of their shareholdings merely because the foreign company in which they invested happened to hold residential properties in Singapore. Such properties would constitute only a small percentage of the total assets of the foreign company. There were also a number of other reasons for abandoning the original approach which I do not now propose to discuss, but what finally persuaded us to adopt the approach in clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill as now drafted were the advantages of this method which are threefold, namely:- First, the forced sale is in respect of residential properties only (which is, in fact, the Government objective); foreign shareholdings in these companies would not, therefore, be affected once the residential properties are sold as required by these clauses; further, under clause 16, the Minister would have a discretion, where the circumstances so warrant, to permit foreign companies with foreign shareholders to acquire, purchase or retain any specific residential properties; Secondly, administratively it would be much easier for the Controller of Residential Property to deal with property transfers rather than share transfers which it would be best for a civil servant not to handle; and Thirdly, it is generally likely to cause less dislocation and upheaval in the foreign companies concerned and in the stock market. It should be noted that foreign companies only, but not foreign natural persons or societies, are required to dispose of residential properties vested in them as at 11th September, 1973. Such natural persons and societies will be required to obtain approval for the purchase of properties after that date.”
“However, the Minister, after considering the recommendations of the Residential Property Advisory Committee, would have discretionary power to allow the foreign company to retain its residential property as provided in clause 16 (4) (a). In the very early drafts of the Bill, an attempt was made to implement the modus operandi outlined in the press statement by adopting the device therein suggested which involved requiring foreign companies to dispose of shares held by foreign shareholders and by making it mandatory for foreign companies to alter their memorandum or articles of association so as to prohibit non-citizens from becoming directors and also to limit shareholdings to Singapore citizens or local companies. But this approach, apart from leading to certain unintended results would create a rather untidy situation whereby the Controller of Residential Property would be obliged to dispose of many millions of shares on the Stock Exchange. This approach was finally abandoned for a number of reasons. For one thing, banks which have many millions of shares held by foreign persons, and which might wish to retain their residential property would be faced with having to dispose of their foreign shareholdings. Further, the procedure suggested could lead to large numbers of shares being disposed of on the stock market, which could well result in the artificial depression of share prices in leading counters and in the Stock Exchange generally. That procedure would also cause the unnecessary disposal of foreign shares by foreign investors who acquired the shares because of the intrinsic investment potential of the foreign company.”
“Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill require "foreign companies" to dispose of all the residential properties owned by them at the date of the coming into operation of the Act, i.e. 11th September, 1973 (or within such period as may be allowed by the Minister) by transferring these residential properties to citizens of Singapore or approved purchasers, un less such foreign companies are permitted to retain them by virtue of clause 16 or are exempted under clause .22. Where such foreign companies do not dispose of such properties within that period, the Minister may direct the Controller of Residential Property to attach and sell such properties at any time after three months of the date of such notice. As soon as practicable thereafter, the Controller is required to sell the same to a citizen of Singapore or an approved purchaser and pay the proceeds of the sale, less any costs, to the foreign company concerned. I would like to dwell for a moment on clauses 4 and 5 which are important aspects of the Bill. They achieve the object of the policy as stated in the press statement of 10th September, 1973, though the means employed are, for good reasons, different. It is considered that the provisions in the Bill obliging a foreign company to dispose of Its residential property provide a more workable, less cumbersome and much less restrictive legislative framework than an approach which involves the disposal of shares held by foreign shareholders as envisaged in the first press statement. The Bill provides that where a foreign company holds residential property, it must dispose of such residential property within a period of time.”
“Sub-clause (4) of clause 30 provides that all approvals granted from the 11th day of September, 1973, to the 11th day of September, 1975, shall be deemed to have been made under the Act. The Bill has been drafted in general conformity with the guidelines laid down by the first press statement but departs from it in certain particulars where this has since been considered necessary. It is the intention of the Government to refer the Bill to a Select Committee so that all interested bodies and members of the public will have an opportunity to present their views which will be carefully assessed. The Explanatory Statement to the Bill sets out in some detail the nature of the provisions of the Bill, and I do not therefore propose to discuss them in detail. However, I would like to touch on some of the more salient points. The Bill expressly prohibits the transfer to, or purchase or acquisition by, "foreign persons" of "residential property". These as well as a number of other expressions are defined in the Bill. It is also provided that no estate or interest many residential property belonging to a deceased person who dies on or after 11th September, 1973, shall pass to a beneficiary who is a foreign person. In the case of such residential property which would otherwise have passed to a foreign person, the legal personal representatives of the deceased person are required to sell such property to a citizen of Singapore or an "approved purchaser" within five years of the death of such deceased person and pay the proceeds, less expenses, to the foreign person so beneficially entitled. It has been found necessary to include such a provision as its omission would constitute a loophole or a method of circumventing the proposed legislation.”
“Since 11th September, 1973, administrative control in respect of residential properties has been exercised by the Registrar of Titles and the Residential Property Advisory Committee under my supervision. This has given us an opportunity of observing the effect of control and of working out necessary procedures and rulings so that the sum total of all this experience has gone into the drafting of the Bill, which, in consequence, has been revised and amended several times. Government has felt that it should not rush headlong into a legislative measure of this nature and that account should be taken of the effect of the restriction on the property market. Thus, 16 months after the restriction was imposed, it was found that the curbs on non-citizens could be relaxed to some extent. Consequently, on 9th January, 1975, a second Government press statement was issued stating that as from the following day Government would remove restrictions on the purchase by non-citizens of flats or apartments in buildings of not less than six storeys, including the ground floor, and that such flats or apartments could be bought and sold by non-citizens in the same way as commercial and industrial properties. Non-citizens wishing to purchase other types of residential property would have to continue to seek approval in accordance with already established procedures. Sub-clause (3) of clause 2 of the Bill expressly states this particular exemption. At the time of the second press statement in January the Residential Property Advisory Committee had considered and approved 220 applications from non-citizens to purchase residential properties.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." On 10th September, 1973, a Government press statement made it known that as from the day following the announcement only citizens of Singapore would be permitted to purchase residential property without any restriction. This decision was arrived at after considerable thought. For many months before that, the cost of real estate had been sharply on the increase and had almost doubled over the previous year. Government was concerned about the rise and decided that it should confine its efforts at keeping down the cost of residential property, leaving the market value of commercial and industrial properties to find their levels by the interaction of factors governing supply and demand. Land is a precious commodity in Singapore. Of Singapore's total area of about 596 sq, km, or 230 sq. miles, about 65% is State land or is held by statutory boards. Only 34% or 20,540 hectares or 78 sq, miles, is still in private ownership. We, therefore, need not only to husband land more carefully but also to ensure that, in so far as residential properties are concerned, citizens of Singapore are able to purchase their own houses. While those eligible for Housing and Development Board flats are catered for, and the well-off can afford the more choice residential property, it is for the middle income groups who find housing of reasonable standards beyond their means - our teachers, administrators, lawyers, engineers, executives, civil servants, etc., those serving in the Police and Armed Forces and others - for whom every endeavour should be made to enable them to enjoy home ownership.”
“Yes, I agree with the Member that it will be a waste. But what is his point? The owner of a strata title owns his particular flat. All these flats are on a piece of land. If there are 20 flats of equal area, he owns one-twentieth of that land. Obviously you cannot divide 10,000 sq.ft. by 20, as there will be not much left to build. Hence the condominium idea. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, "That the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection."- [Mr E. W. Barker]. RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.28 p.m.”
“The answer is simple. All that the flat owner owns is a part of the land. If the flat owner owns, let us say, Flat A on the 16th floor, then if the flat is demolished all he owns is a little portion of the land in the proportion in Which he owned it before.”
“Sir, can the Member repeat his question, because I did not quite catch him?”
“Under the Bill some significant changes have been proposed for the pur- pose of enlarging the powers, duties and obligations of a management corporation established under Part IV of the Act in respect of subdivided buildings and condominium developments. These changes are necessary because every owner of a strata lot in a subdivided building or a condominium development participates in community living. It has been found necessary to amend the law in this respect to ensure that every owner plays his part in maintaining a subdivided building or the condominium development. Sir, the Bill will affect the rights and interests of a large section of our public. It is therefore proposed to refer it to a Select Committee so that all interested parties can air their views and make such representations as they may deem necessary. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.23 p.m.”
“As soon as the strata title plan of the estate has been registered with the Registrar of Titles the owners of the housing or flat units in the estate will constitute the management corporation of the estate. The management corporation will then be responsible for the maintenance of all the recreational facilities and the common property. The interest which an owner of a housing unit in such an estate acquires is contained in a strata title. He owns what is within the confines of his bungalow, semi-detached house, terrace house or flat as the case may be. The land on which all the housing units are built is vested in all the owners as part of their common property in accordance with the shares allotted to them as shown in the strata title plan. In such an estate, owners of bungalows, semi-detached houses and terrace houses may also own private gardens. The land comprising the garden also forms part of the common property but an "accessory" strata lot will be created for the garden so privately owned and such "accessory" lot can only be transferred together with the strata lot comprising the dwelling unit. The Bill also provides for the issue of strata titles for a condominium development as and when part of it is completed. In a very large housing project, it is desirable to allow the developers to convey the legal title of completed housing units even though the whole housing project has not been completed. This will enable a developer to divest himself of his title in a completed housing unit while the construction of the remaining part is still in progress and a purchaser to obtain a good title to his individual housing unit much earlier.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, although the Bill appears to introduce a large number of amendments to the Act, the bulk of them are merely consequential amendments, and I shall deal with only the main ones. The Land Titles (Strata) Act, enacted in 1968, enables purchasers of flats for which strata titles have been issued to manage and maintain the building containing the flats and its related common property such as common corridors, staircases, garden and lifts. However, in recent years there have been attempts made by the developer of a subdivided building to control the management of the building after the issue of the certificates of strata title by issuing leases of the flats to the purchasers with terms entrenched in the leases in favour of the developer. To ensure that these purchasers, who have been granted a leasehold interest of a term of not less than 21 years, should have a say in the management and maintenance of the common property pertaining to the subdivided building, it is necessary to amend the Act to allow such purchasers to exercise fully the rights of management conferred upon Strata title owners as if the leases were not created. The Bill before this House seeks, inter alia, to do this. The Bill provides for the issue of strata titles for condominium developments. Perhaps I should explain briefly what a condominium development is. A housing estate which is classified as a condominium development will have the usual bungalows, semi-detached houses, terrace houses and, perhaps flats. The estate looks no different from the usual housing estate. However, in a condominium development, the developer will be required to provide recreational facilities for all the residents in the estate.”
“Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of that portion of the foreshore and seabed at Changi containing a total area of approximately 607 hectares as depicted coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 13/75" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr E. W. Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Three minutes past Six o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. * The motion reads as follows: 'That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of that portion of the foreshore and seabed at Changi containing a total area of approximately 607 hectares as depicted coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 13/75" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.' Sir, it is proposed to develop the existing airport at Changi into a civil airport. The proposed development involves the construction of a second runway which necessitates the reclamation of about 607 hectares of the foreshore at Changi as shown coloured pink on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 13/75", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. The reclamation, which will be undertaken by the Port of Singapore Authority as agents of Government, is expected to take about four years to complete and will cost some $165 million inclusive of shore protection works. Tenders for the reclamation have already been called and contracts are expected to be awarded by the end of next month. The construction of the second runway could probably start in 1978 on portions of the consolidated reclaimed land and be completed by 1982. Fill for the reclamation will be obtained by dredging the nearby shallow foreshore within the area coloured yellow and hatched black on the plan. Additional fill will be obtained by dredging existing navigation channels within port waters. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Resolved, That this Parliament in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270) approves the reclamation by Government of those portions of the swamp, foreshore and seabed around Pulau Semakau, containing a total area of approximately 220 hectares as shown coloured green on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 7/75" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. RECLAMATION AT CHANGI 6.00 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name, as it appears on the Order Paper. * The motion reads as follows: 'That this Parliament i accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270) approves the reclaimation by Government of those protions of the swamp, foreshores and seabed around Puala Semakau, containing a total area of approximately 220 hectares as shown coloured green on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 7/75" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.' Sir, the Jurong Town Corporation proposes to develop Pulau Semakau into a petrol-chemical complex. The island consists of about 29 hectares (71.65 acres) of dry land as shown coloured yellow on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 7/75", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members, and about 220 hectares (543.62 acres) of swamp, foreshore and seabed (up to the edge of the reef) as shown coloured green on the plan. For the purpose of the proposed development it is necessary to reclaim the swamp, foreshore and seabed. The reclamation, which is expected to commence next year, is estimated to cost the Jurong Town Corporation about $150 million. Fill for the reclamation will be obtained by dredging the surrounding areas shown coloured blue on the plan. On completion of the reclamation the reclaimed land will be proclaimed as State land and together with the 29 hectares (71.65 acres) of the dry land (coloured yellow) will be alienated to the Jurong Town Corporation on terms and conditions to be agreed with the Commissioner of Lands. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Malayan Pineapple Industry Board is a joint Board with members from both Singapore and Malaysia. It has a representative each from the pineapple canners and the pineapple small growers. Clause 2 seeks to increase the representation of these pineapple canners and small growers from one member to two members each. The Board will then have altogether nine members, including the Chairman. Singapore is represented by one member on the Board. With the increase in the number of members, the quorum of the Board is, therefore, to be increased from four to five. The Board also wishes to be in a position to receive moneys from the Government. Clause 4 makes provision for moneys provided by Parliament to be paid into the Pineapple Industry Fund and for such moneys to be applied for any purpose within the objects of the Act, and to grant vehicle and house loans to its employees. The Malaysian Government has already made the necessary amendments to its legislation. To enable the Board to implement its decisions, it is necessary for Singapore to make the corresponding amendments to our Singapore Pineapple Industry Act. 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 E. W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL (As reported from Select Committee) Order for Third Reading read. 5.50 p.m.”
“Sir, I beg, to move, In page 13, line 21, to leave out from "(1)" to the end of line 23 and insert - "An applicant shall have the same right of appeal, if any, against a refusal by a court in Singapore to make a provisional order under any provision of this Act as he would have had against a refusal to make the order had a summons been duly served on the person against whom the order is sought to be made.", Sir, the amendment proposed will enable a complainant to make an appeal to the High Court against the refusal of a lower Court in Singapore to make a provisional maintenance order. This new subclause preserves the existing position under our Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act which is to be repealed by this Bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 13 to 19 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed. PINEAPPLE INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 5.48 p.m.”
“Once a country has been so designated, persons who are entitled to payments under maintenance orders made by a court in Singapore will be able to enforce the maintenance orders in the reciprocating country and similarly persons who are entitled to payments under maintenance orders made in a reciprocating country will be able to enforce the maintenance orders in Singapore. (b) The definition of "maintenance orders" appearing in the Bill has been amended to include maintenance orders made in favour of ex-wives and affiliation orders. A maintenance order is defined to be an order for the periodical payments of sums of money towards the maintenance of any person whom the payer is liable to maintain, e.g. maintenance of a child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, maintenance of a spouse and maintenance of a former spouse after divorce. An affiliation order is an order adjudging, finding or declaring a person to be the father of a child. In other words, the Bill makes it possible for an ex-wife and an illegitimate child to available themselves of the facilities afforded by the Bill for the enforcement of maintenance orders. (c) The Bill makes provision for applying the machinery for making provisional orders to be used in respect of affiliation orders. 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 E. W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee, [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 5.46 p.m. Clauses 1 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 12 -”