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 29 of 44.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the most recently completed one was the Pelton Canal scheme which was the lining of Pelton Canal through MacPherson Estate completed in May this year at a cost of $� million. The Alexandra Canal lining was completed in 1968 at a cost of $2 million. The Geylang Canal widening and lining was completed in 1968 at a cost of $1.2 million. The Tampines Road Canal improvement was completed in 1967 at a cost of $� million. The Orchard Road Canal lining was completed in 1964 at a cost of $� million.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in addition, all flood alleviation and drainage plans are being reassessed and, finance permitting, proposals for new drainage schemes will be implemented in the future that will lessen the severity of floods. We could not altogether avoid the flooding that was caused by the unprecedented 16.9 inches of rainfall in 24 hours on the 10th of December coinciding with a high spring tide of 10 feet 1 inch.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the floods on 10th December last were caused by unprecedented heavy rains coinciding with a high spring tide. Nothing can be done to prevent rainfall or to alter the movement of tides. However, our drainage system can be improved. But finance is the limiting factor. We can construct a drainage system augmented by huge pumping stations that will meet all eventualities, but this will be extremely costly and difficult to justify. Like all public work projects, priorities have to be decided. Over the last few years, several drainage and flood alleviation schemes have been approved. Some of these have been completed, whilst others are still under construction. The following schemes are now under construction: (1) The Bukit Timah Flood Alleviation Scheme, Phase 1, which is the cutting of a diversion canal to channel water from the upper Bukit Timah catchment area to Ulu Pandan canal. The scheme is expected to be completed by the end of next year and the cost will be in the region of $6� million. (2) The urban renewal drainage scheme - the New Bridge Road outlet drain and Peng Siang Quay outlet drain. Concrete lining and realignment of both drains is being done. Completion date is May 1970 and the cost is $1 million. (3) The Sungei Kallang improvement scheme, which consists of the realignment and widening of the river from Braddell Road to Thomson Road, including Potong Pasir and Lorong Chuan, costing $� million. (4) Kampong Kembangan and Siglap improvement scheme. Work is being done on the improvement of subsidiary drains in the Kampong Kembangan area which lead into the Siglap Canal at a cost of $150,000. (5) Sungei Whampoa lining. Concrete lining of Sungei Whampoa is expected to be completed in four months' time at a cost of $� million.”
“Yes, and I do not see any objection to such imports. We have in the past imported worms even from Japan.”
“The Primary Production Department will encourage the breeding of worms. For those who do not know how to breed them, the Department will be only too pleased to give them a demonstration of the technique of tubi-fex worm production.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the current shortage of worms is due not so much to the anti-mosquito campaign but rather to the rapid increase in the demand for worms as more and more people breed fancy fish either for their own enjoyment or for export. The Primary Production Department has been conducting experiments in tubi-fex worm cultivation since 1967. Successful techniques have been evolved to enable fancy fish breeders to produce their own worms. The techniques have been taught to interested parties and demonstration units have been set up at Lim Chu Kang and Sembawang veterinary centres. In fact, many aquarium fish hobbyists and exporters are now producing tubi-fex worms on their own. Those who are interested should apply to the Primary Production Department for a demonstration of the technique of worm production.”
“Sir, if the Member for Sembawang had taken the trouble to read the Report of the Select Committee, he would not have to ask me these questions. These matters were raised in representations to the Select Committee and the Committee's Report is before the House. I do not appoint members of the Presidential Council, but certainly the Member's views will be taken into account. It is a great pity, after having heard him today, that we did not appoint him to the Select Committee.”
“Such a Constitution (Amendment) Bill would again have to obtain the clearance of the Presidential Council so that any such Bill which in the opinion of the Council adversely affects fundamental rights or liberties may not be passed by Parliament without a two-thirds majority. There is really nothing inconsistent with the constitutional amendment provisions. The effects of the particular clause would be to ensure further the protection of these fundamental rights or liberties.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may first deal with the Member for Sembawang. He wants to know when the Presidential Council will be set up. The answer is next year. How early next year I do not know. It takes a lot of administrative work to get such a Council on to its feet. But perhaps the Member himself is anxious to get on the Council. The Member for Bukit Panjang questioned whether the provision in Article 81K (6) (c) of the Bill is not inconsistent with or illogical when compared with the present Article 90 of our Constitution relating to constitutional amendments. He also referred to Article 52 which says: 'Any law enacted by the Legislature after the coming into operation of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.' Article 90 (1) provides that: 'The provisions of this Constitution may be amended by a law enacted by the Legislature.' Sir, as the law now stands, the Constitution may be amended by a simple majority, as laid down in Article 90. But Article 81K clause (6) (c) of the Bill requires a two-thirds majority in order to overcome any adverse opinion of the Council to the effect that a provision in the proposed law is a differentiating measure inconsistent with the fundamental liberties of the subjects. Members will agree that it is only but right that we should have this provision in order that Parliament may not, without such a majority, abrogate these fundamental liberties if, in the opinion of the Council, a Bill would have such ill effects. Any suggestion that the requirement in Article 81K clause (6) (c) might be overcome by a withdrawal and re-submission of such a proposed measure as the Constitution (Amendment) Bill would be quite incorrect.”
“The main function of this Council would be to offer such assistance by way of counsel and advice upon legislation, including subsidiary legislation, that might have provisions which conflict with fundamental rights and liberties of minority interests in the State. It is hoped, as well, that the Council would provide the Government or Parliament with such advice as may be sought from it, on any matter relating to the safeguarding of rights or liberties belonging to certain sections of our community, whether they relate to racial, religious or other matters. While recognising its usefulness, the Government has also provided such measures in the Bill as to ensure the legislative supremacy of Parliament. We have endowed the Council with the authority and status to make its views known and felt on all those matters I have just referred to. So it is, Sir, that the Council can, in regard to what it considers to be differentiating measures, cause a reconsideration of such provisions in any proposed law or indeed any existing law. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when this Bill was introduced in the House, I explained that it would amend the Constitution in two respects. First, it would set out a new Part relating solely to the Judiciary. Second, it would set up the Presidential Council whose creation was recommended by the Constitutional Commission on minority rights. Six written representations were received by the Select Committee and accepted as being relevant. These are annexed to the Committee's Report as Appendix II. Members will note that these representations were made only in respect of the second part of the Bill, namely, the Presidential Council. Oral evidence was heard by the Committee in respect of one representation. No major amendments have been recommended by the Select Committee. In respect of the first part, Article 52D has been redrafted because it was thought that the requirement that one must be a citizen before he can be appointed a Judge of the High Court may exclude otherwise suitable candidates. The other change is the insertion of clause (10) to Article 52F wherein it is provided that the President may, in his discretion, grant leave to the Chief Justice and the other Judges of the High Court. The second part of the Bill sets out more radical provisions and only one minor amendment thereto has been recommended -- a purely drafting amendment to Article 81M (5). Members will recall that the Constitutional Commission on minority rights had recommended the creation of the Presidential Council and that Government had accepted this recommendation.”
“The next available sitting of Parliament, Sir. CUSTOMS (DUMPING AND SUBSIDIES) (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.24 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Local Government Integration Ordinance, 1963 (No. 18 of 1963)". This is the Bill referred to by the Minister for Finance in his Ministerial statement just now. Bill read the First time. Second Reading”
“Since the existing arrangement I have described has worked satisfactorily, I do not think it is necessary to constitute a special inter-departmental committee just to deal with mosquito complaints. INCREASE OF WATER CHARGES (Statement by the Minister for Finance) 3.00 p.m.”
“Since 1963 up to date, about 24 schemes to provide electricity supplies to about 674 authorised houses have been completed at a cost of about $457,000. There are, at present, 11 schemes which have been approved for implementation to cater for another 427 authorised houses. These will be carried out in stages and are expected to be completed before mid-1971 at a cost of about $317,000. Survey and planning of the schemes to provide electricity supplies for the resettlement of 86 shop-houses at the l4½ milestone Woodlands Road are under consideration by the Board. In addition, seven other schemes are now under active survey and planning in Bukit Panjang. MOSQUITO MENACE (Setting up of inter-departmental Committee) 9. Mr P. Selvadurai asked the Minister for Health if he will take steps to constitute an inter-departmental committee that will receive from the public complaints relating to the mosquito menace and take effective action thereon without the need to pass the responsibility from one Ministry to another. The Minister for Health (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Mr Speaker, Sir, an Operations Room was set up in the Ministry of Health on 1st October, 1968, for the purpose of receiving all complaints relating to public health, including those on the mosquito menace, and dealing with them expeditiously. Every complaint received is investigated, if substantiated, remedial measures are promptly taken. Where the matter complained of is the responsibility of another Ministry, Government department or statutory board, or where the problem can only be solved by such other Ministry, Government department or statutory board, the complaint is immediately referred to them for necessary action to be taken. Quite often joint action is taken to deal satisfactorily with the complaint.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Utilities Board expects to complete the electrification scheme of Bukit Panjang Constituency by the end of 1972.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with the support given by nearly all the voices heard today, except one, I need hardly wind up. The Member for Telok Blangah previously did criticise the Bill, but we put him on the Select Committee. Since then he has changed his mind. It is a pity that we did not put his namesake from Anson on the Select Committee. We might have been able to make him change his mind; I do not know. But whatever it is, I do not think it can be said of him that he is not a man of courage. Certainly he is not afraid to air his views in this House. I do not propose to join issue with him here today except to correct one misapprehension that he is under, which is this. He did say that one of the reasons given by Government for introducing this Bill is that the jury takes too much time. I have never given this as a reason. But I would agree with him that where a man's life is at stake, it is not important for us to insist that time is of the essence. When a man's life is at stake, the trial should take as long as is required. Sir, I have nothing further to add in view of the other speeches made in this House. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.”
“(b) Both Judges must agree that the accused is guilty as charged before he can be convicted. (c) If they cannot agree, he shall not be convicted of that offence but may be convicted of any lesser offence based on the same facts, provided, of course, both Judges again agree. (d) Upon all questions relating to procedure and the admission or rejection of evidence in the course of a trial, the presiding Judge shall have a casting vote in the event of disagreement. In conclusion, I would put it to the House that the case for the total abolition of the Jury has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, as can be seen from the Report of the Select Committee. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.15 p.m.”
“It was because of this lack of evidence that the Council urged in its original Memorandum that Government should give further consideration to the issue as a whole in a wider context, and in giving their evidence to the Select Committee the representatives of the Council canvassed the possibility of a full inquiry. Since July, the Select Committee has heard evidence including that given by 7 members from one jury and 3 from another, the substance of all of which and the actual transcript and recording of the greater part of which has been made available to the Council's representatives and through them by permission of the Chairman of the Select Committee to the remaining members of the Council, This evidence has to some extent opened the closed doors of the Jury Room. The details are contained in the record of the proceedings of the Select Committee, and it would be superfluous to set them out again in this Memorandum. Suffice it to say that if the state of affairs disclosed in the evidence is typical of Jury trials in Singapore as a whole, all members of the Council are satisfied that there is something fundamentally wrong with jury trials as they now operate and that some remedial measures must be necessary. It is at this stage that opinions among individual members of the Council begin to differ.' The Bar then reiterated that the majority of their members still felt that the Jury System should be retained. On the assumption that their views for the retention of the Jury would not be accepted, the Bar made further suggestions, most of which have been accepted. In the result, in all capital cases: (a) The accused will be tried by a Court of two Judges, one of whom shall be the presiding Judge.”
“Three members of the jury had voted for murder, and four for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Such a verdict would, under our law, result in a retrial. Instead, the verdict delivered was an unanimous verdict for the lesser offence. When the foreman returned home, his conscience pricked him and subsequently he informed the Deputy Registrar of the High Court about the mistake. But nothing could be done to rectify the mistake as the jury was functus officio. In the second case after an unanimous verdict for murder had been delivered, one of the jurors was very upset when the sentence of death was passed. He was under the impression that the accused would at the most be given a sentence for life. Sir, nearly all the ten jurors said that they were reluctant to serve on juries and would have been happier had they not been called. It was apparent that a few did not have enough understanding of the English language to follow the proceedings in court. Members of the Bar Council, after having heard the evidence and having examined some of these jurors, submitted a further note on this Bill to the Attorney-General, and I quote: 'In July of this year when the Council's original Memorandum to the Select Committee was submitted, there was no positive evidence available to the Council apart from the statistics showing the relative number of convictions and acquittals which would give any reliable information as to the precise detailed working of the Jury System as it is at present administered in Singapore. The reason for this was no doubt the longstanding tradition that what happens behind the closed doors of a Jury Room after the Jury has retired is never disclosed.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Sir, when this Bill was introduced in this House, I emphasised the fact that the proposed abolition of the jury had not been conceived impulsively but that Government had given considerable thought to this Bill and could not ignore experiences in recent trials by jury. I would not hesitate to reiterate that rather than allow justice to be thwarted, through either squeamishness or ignorance, Government is prepared whenever necessary for the well-being of the community to amend the procedural methods of administering the law. Opponents to the Bill had asked whether we had any positive evidence that the jury system had failed. Because of these objections, this Bill was sent to Select Committee. Many written representations were received by the Committee, of which 11 were accepted as being relevant, and these are annexed to the Report as Appendix II. Most of these representations were from advocates and solicitors and one from their Council. Oral evidence was heard from seven members of one jury and three members of another jury, who sat in two trials for murder held in the few weeks since the Second Reading of the Bill. The Deputy Registrar of the High Court also gave evidence. Six representatives of the Council of the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society were heard and given the opportunity to listen to a recorded tape of the evidence given by the jurors. They were also given the opportunity to examine these jurors. The evidence heard by the Select Committee strengthened and confirmed Government's view that trial by jury in capital cases should be abolished altogether. In one case it appeared that the foreman of the jury had innocently delivered a mistaken verdict.”
“Following the passage of this Bill, the existing Architects Ordinance will be amended and brought up to date to fall in line with some of the provisions herein. This Bill, though it says "Third Reading immediately after the Second Reading" on the Order Paper, will be sent to Select Committee where further representations of the profession and those of the public can be made and will be given every consideration. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, "That the Bill he committed to a Select Committee consisting of eight members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection."-[Mr Barker]. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL (As reported from Select Committee) Order for Third Reading read. 4.03 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The rapid expansion of industries and the construction of more and more, and higher and higher buildings in the Republic has placed a greater burden of responsibility on our practising engineers. Unlike law, medicine or accountancy, the practice of engineering is not governed by any substantial written law, and the 800 or so practising engineers can only be registered, if they so desire, as practising architects. With the need today for more sophisticated engineering projects, the Government feels the time has come to legislate for the compulsory registration and control of practising engineers. The Bill seeks to provide, inter alia, for the establishment of a Professional Engineers Board which will be responsible for the registration of all practising engineers. The Board will regulate the practice and will hear and determine disputes relating to their profession, and it will have the power to cancel the registration of a professional engineer, or suspend him for as long as it thinks fit. Provision has been made to empower the Board in the event of any prima facie defect in work or prima facie negligence to suspend forthwith the engineer responsible from further performance of his profession for a period of time pending further investigation and the final decision of the Board. This provision is strict but considered to be necessary in order to safeguard life and property and to maintain a high standard of performance by professional engineers. All persons who possess the necessary qualifications may apply for registration. There is no restriction on the applicant's citizenship. Unregistered persons will, of course, be prohibited from practising as professional engineers.”
“This would lead to unnecessary inconvenience and delay in the rendition of a fugitive. The amendments proposed in clauses 4 and 6 of the Bill will thus obviate the necessity of giving such an undertaking every time we seek the return of a fugitive offender from the United Kingdom or any other Commonwealth country which has adopted the "speciality rule". Opportunity has also been taken in this Bill to make a drafting amendment to the definition of "extradition crime" in relation both to a Commonwealth country and to a foreign state, and also to make it clear that a District Judge has all the powers that are conferred upon a Magistrate under the Extradition Act. Though the latter situation is to a great extent provided for by section 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is desirable that specific provision should be made in our Act if for no other reason than that this Act is intended to deal in a comprehensive manner with all matters concerning extradition. This amendment appears in clause 2 which amends section 4 of the Act. The other amendments proposed by clauses 3 and 5 are drafting amendments. 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 Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.57 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill now before this House seeks to amend the Extradition Act, 1968, principally with a view to bringing sections 21 and 31 of the Act in line with the corresponding provisions in the extradition legislation of most other Commonwealth countries. Under the existing provisions of our Act, a fugitive offender who has been returned to Singapore for an offence committed prior to his return may be tried not only for the offence for which he was returned but for any other offence based on proof of the same facts of the offence for which he was returned; whereas under the "speciality rule" of extradition legislation in most other Commonwealth countries including the United Kingdom, such a fugitive can only be tried for any lesser offence based on proof of the same facts. Where, for example, the United Kingdom Government accedes to a request of the Singapore Government to return a fugitive accused of the murder of a child that he had kidnapped, the use of the words "any other offence" under section 31 of our Act as at present drafted would enable that person to be convicted of kidnapping with intent to murder which under our law carries the same penalty as murder - the offence for which he was returned. The offence of kidnapping with intent to murder is not therefore "a lesser offence" to that of murder. Unless, therefore, the existing provisions in our Act are amended as proposed in the Bill, the Singapore Government would be obliged to give an undertaking to the Government of the United Kingdom every time it seeks the return of a fugitive offender that he will only be tried for the offence for which he was returned, or a lesser offence based on proof of the same facts.”
“The answer to the Member for Telok Blangah is "Yes". There will be no redundancy. The Housing Board has built about 110,000 units of flats in Singapore of which about 22,000 have been sold. This is just one-fifth of the total number, and whatever happens to these flats and their management corporations, surely the Housing Board will need all its employees to look after the balance of the 80 per cent. It is rather difficult to follow the Member's arguments about fragmentation of estates in Malaya and fragmentation of flats in Singapore. 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 Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. EXTRADITION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.50 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Under section 46 of the existing Housing and Development Ordinance, one management corporation has to be established by the owners in each and every building of Housing Board flats. In practice, it has been found that more than one building can be satisfactorily managed by one management corporation. For reasons of economy and administrative efficiency, it is desirable to amend section 46 to make it possible for more than one block of buildings to be managed by one corporation. Opportunity is also taken to amend subsection (5) of the same section to remove any doubts as to who should be the authority to set up a management corporation. Under this amendment a management corporation will not be constituted until the Minister makes an order so constituting it. Another amendment made is in respect of the period of appointment of members to the Board under section 6. Under this amendment, the Minister may appoint a member to hold office for any period not exceeding three years instead of a fixed period of three years and no less at present. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.41 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 9, to leave out line 41. This is again to rectify a drafting error. Amendment agreed to. Second Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.39 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 9, line 7, to leave out "the" where it first occurs and insert "this". This is to rectify a typographical error. Amendment agreed to. First Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Second Schedule -”
“The laws to be repealed by clause 3 and the Second Schedule to the Bill have, for one reason or another, ceased to have any useful operation or purpose. The Bill is intended only to remove these laws from the statute book and not to affect the operation of any other laws. The Customs (Exemption and Remission of Charges) Act, 1965, which was enacted whilst Singapore was in Malaysia, is unnecessary because the Customs authorities have adequate powers of exemption and remission under the Customs Ordinance, 1960. The turnover tax which was provided for by the Turnover Tax Act, 1965, has never been levied in Singapore and its repeal is made retrospective to the date of Singapore's separation from Malaysia. 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 Barker]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 3.35 p.m. Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. First Schedule -”
“In the Women's Charter, 1961, the word "Part" is defined so as to simplify the wording of the Ordinance; the omission of some words in section 21 is corrected; in section 28 the correction already made in the 1961 Supplement to the Laws is confirmed; the definition of "maintenance order" in section 70, in describing orders made in other Commonwealth countries, mentions those that are confirmed in Singapore but omits reference to orders that are registered in Singapore and this is rectified so as to conform to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Ordinance; and in Part X concerning women and girls, some obsolete references and verbal mistakes are corrected. Amendments to the Interpretation Act, 1965, will ensure that its provisions cover Malaysian laws enforced in Singapore, and that section 57 effectively repeals the Delegation of Powers Ordinance, 1956, as was intended. Amendments to the Evidence Ordinance will correct mistakes in sections 57 and 82 and remove a provision in section 118 concerning bills of exchange; there is now a different provision on the subject in the Bills of Exchange Ordinance, 1949, which is a complete code for bills of exchange, and the amendment will allow the latter to operate in its entirety. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 3.32 p.m. In the Criminal Procedure Code, section 18 is amended to give District Judges jurisdiction in all extradition cases, not just those concerning Commonwealth countries; a correction is made to section 310, and section 442 is amended so that affidavits may be sworn before Singapore and Malaysian consuls and vice-consuls; and an additional form of charge is inserted in Schedule B.”
“In the Bankruptcy Ordinance, the provision now in the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance is incorporated in section 43 and an obsolete provision removed; in keeping with modern practice, the Official Assignee's accounts are to be audited once instead of twice a year under section 77; and section 109 is reworded so that the penal provisions in Part VII will distinguish between a trial court and the Bankruptcy court. In the Registration of Criminals Ordinance, offences under the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Ordinance, 1958, are added to the list of registrable crimes because offences under the law which it replaced, namely, the Corrosive Substances Ordinance, 1955, were registered. For the same reason, the 1958 Ordinance is added to the laws specified in the Third Schedule to the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955, which by section 49c increases the penalties for certain offenders. The Revised Edition of the Law (Annual Supplements) Ordinance, 1956, authorises the publication of annual supplements to the 1955 revised edition of Ordinances. The present amendments will enable the Attorney-General to go on issuing annual supplements after the publication of the revised edition of Acts which is now being prepared.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill now before this House seeks to make a number of minor amendments to various laws and to repeal entirely twenty other laws in accordance with the recommendations of the Law Revision Commissioners who were appointed to prepare a revised edition of our Acts. The object of the amendments is to remedy gaps, remove inconsistencies and obsolete provisions, and to improve the form and arrangement of the statute laws, but without changing their original purpose. The Bill is not intended to affect any existing rights, duties or liabilities of any person or body of persons, public or private. The enactment of the amendments will enable them to be incorporated in the revised edition of our Acts. Members will observe that the amendments which appear in the First Schedule to the Bill are generally of a formal kind and self-explanatory. I shall therefore now elucidate the more important amendments only as they appear in this Schedule. Amendments are made in section 5 of the Arbitration Ordinance to conform to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Ordinance; and in section 33, subsection (3) is taken out and inserted in the Merchant Shipping Ordinance and the other subsections, except subsection (6), are repealed to avoid duplication with the Limitation Ordinance, 1959. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 3.27 p.m.”
“Appendix to Mr Barker's motion on "Department Titles" at (Cols 0217-0232) STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.25 p.m.”
“For instance, one of the items in the Schedule on page 106 of Volume II of the Laws of Singapore, 1955 edition, substitutes "Assistant Commissioner for Labour" for "Assistant Controller for Labour". As "Assistant Controller of Labour", the old title, no longer appears in any laws or documents, it is removed along with a number of other items set out in Part I of the Schedule to the motion and which are no longer required. The second way is to add items to the Schedule to the Ordinance where there have been departmental changes and the old titles or names are still likely to be found in laws and documents. To take an example, the office of "Extra Assistant Commissioner for Labour" was changed last year to "Principal Assistant Commissioner for Labour", but the old name still appears in some laws and other documents. The addition of this and other items in Part II of the Schedule to the motion will ensure that wherever a reference to one of the obsolete titles and names occurs, the corresponding new title will be substituted. The Ordinance provides in section 3 that additions and amendments to the Schedule may be effected by a resolution at any time. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, pursuant to section 3 of the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Ordinance (Chapter 55), resolves that the Schedule to the said Ordinance be amended by the deletion under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the items, shown in Part I of the following Schedule, and by the addition under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office", respectively of the items shown in Part II of the said Schedule+. + The Schedule is reproduced as an appendix at cols. 217-32.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name on the Order Paper. * The motion reads as follows: "That this Parliament, pursuant to section 3 of the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Ordinance (Chapter 55), resolves that the Schedule to the said Ordinance be amended by the deletion under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the items, shown in Part I of the following Schedule, and by the addition under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office", respectively of the items shown in Part II of the said Schedule+ :-" + The Schedule is reproduced as an appendix at cols. 217-32 Appendix to Mr Barker's motion on "Department Titles" at (Cols 0217-0232) Sir, the titles or names of offices in Government departments are changed from time to time for various reasons, and the purpose of the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Ordinance is to ensure that where a change has occurred, the new title or name is substituted for the old wherever the old title appears in any law or document. There is a short provision to this effect in section 2 of the Ordinance which operates in conjunction with the list of old and corresponding new titles contained in the Schedule to the Ordinance. Members will appreciate that what the Ordinance does is not to change the titles of offices but to make the necessary substitution in the laws and other documents after the change has taken place. The Ordinance must, therefore, be revised from time to time to bring it up to date, and this is done in two ways. One is by removing from the Schedule to the Ordinance all the items in which the old title or name of office no longer appears in any law or document, these having ceased to have any operation.”
“Consequent upon the increase in the high-level staff of this Unit, it is our intention that the scope of the work of the Unit will be expanded to include the following: (i) to assess the occupational health problems in Singapore by selected examinations and evaluation of the working environment of our workers; (ii) to study and draw up preventive measures appropriate to local conditions; (iii) to formulate procedures for periodical medical examinations as a control on hazardous occupational groups; (iv) to undertake factory inspection of working environmental conditions and enforcement of relevant sections of the Factories Ordinance and related occupational legislation, normally administered by the Ministry of Labour, with reference to the health of the workers; (v) to advise and give information on occupational health to industries; (vi) to prepare codes of practice and modifications to present legislation and subsequent implementation; (vii) to undertake research and teaching in connection with the primary objectives of the occupational health programme in Singapore.”
“I would say yes. INDUSTRIAL HEALTH UNIT (Increase in staff and functional activities) 12. Inche Abdul Aziz Karim asked the Minister for Health if he will consider (i) attaching a full-time medical officer to the Industrial Health Unit; and (ii) expanding the Unit and increasing its functional activities. The Minister for Health (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since the question is in two parts, I shall answer it in two parts. The first part is concerned with the attaching of a full-time medical officer to the Industrial Health Unit. The Ministry of Health is aware of the limitations of the Ad Hoc Industrial Health Unit which was set up in October 1967 with a limited staff consisting of a part-time medical officer, an inspector of factories and a few office staff. Following the visit of an expert on occupational health from the International Labour Organisation in 1967-68, recommendations were put forward to expand the Ad Hoc Industrial Health Unit in terms of staff and activities. My Ministry recognises the need to establish a more effective Industrial Health Unit to promote industrial health which is incumbent upon our rapid industrial growth. A plan to expand the industrial Health Unit in terms of staff and activities is already in hand. In the provision for more staff, it is envisaged that a full-time medical officer and an industrial hygienist with an engineering background, in addition to eight other professional and non-professional staff, would be included. Mr Speaker, Sir, I come now to the second part of the question which is regarding the expanding of the Unit and increasing its functional activities.”
“I am not aware of such cases, but if the Member will send me the particulars I will certainly look into them. But to cite particular cases in this House and ask me the reasons why allocations were not made puts me in a rather difficult position. I have not got the files here.”
“Some of the flats in Kallang are reserved for people who have been evicted in the vicinity. They are given priority provided they desire to go to Kallang.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not possible to allocate particular flats or shophouses according to choice to residents affected by clearance action. But, in accordance with the present resettlement policy of the Housing and Development Board, offers for the selection of such clearance cases are always made of flats or shophouses that may be available for allocation from time to time. The Member can rest assured that clearance schemes are always carried out with the co-ordination of all the departments involved so as to cause as little inconvenience as possible. However, unforeseen difficulties may occur due to clearance in cases insisting on particular types of attractive accommodation and refusing to vacate the site unless such alternative accommodation is offered to them. Often the type of accommodation desired may not be available or available in sufficient numbers to meet every request.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the long-term objective of Government to provide modern sanitation throughout the island. However, the provision of modern sanitation is not only costly but requires careful planning. Therefore, the implementation of the objective has to be carried out in phases - priorities being given to development in some areas like urban renewal projects, Kallang Basin and Toa Payoh. Provision of adequate and modern sewage facilities for the population is an important element in our development plan. In 20 years the population of Singapore has nearly doubled to a total today of just over two million. The sewage system has been continuously expanded and just over half the population is now served by the system as compared to a quarter of the population in 1949. HOUSING BOARD FLATS AND SHOPHOUSES (Allocation to residents of Bajerai Lane and Towner Road) 11. Inche Abdul Aziz Karim asked the Minister for Law and National Development (a) if he will request the Housing and Development Board to allocate flats or shophouses, according to choice, to the residents of the Bajerai Lane and Towner Road areas who are affected by clearance action; and (b) if he will give an assurance that the Public Works Department and the Letting Section of the Housing and Development Board will co-ordinate their activities in the clearance of those areas so as to avoid any embarrassment or inconvenience to all parties concerned.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. SUPPLY OF ARTIFICIAL LIMBS TO INJURED WORKMEN”
“The repeal of this Ordinance would have the effect of rendering homeless thousands of persons in Singapore and, though much has been done to provide low-cost housing for these poorer sections of the community, we are not as yet in a position to rehouse all the persons that would be affected. However, everyone is aware of Government's policy to encourage home ownership, and there is no doubt that the time will come when this Ordinance may be safely repealed - at first in part and then as a whole. I can assure the House that Government is, in fact, giving very serious and careful consideration to the question of decontrol;-perhaps commercial or business premises could be decontrolled in about five to seven years' time and residential premises in 10 to 12 years' time, but there will be complications where premises are used for mixed purposes unless a just solution is found or some equitable formula arrived at. For the moment, it is Government's intention to advance slowly and in an orderly manner in this respect. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. CATTLE (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 5.33 p.m.”
“This was not the purpose of Government in introducing this legislation. On the contrary, if Government had decided that it was time to nullify the effect of the Control of Rent Ordinance, it would not have adopted this backdoor method of doing so. It was precisely because Government considered that the time was not as yet opportune for an outright repeal of this Ordinance that it was considered that, in the general context of Government's policy to promote development in the private sector, the approach in this Bill of a limited and phased form of de-control with payment of compensation to dispossessed tenants was adopted. If and when the time comes for the repeal of this Ordinance, it would by no means follow that compensation would be paid to tenants who would be obliged to leave their premises because they could not pay the resulting increases in rent. The reason being that if Government decided to repeal that Ordinance, it would be because the economic and housing situation as it affected protected tenants would be such as to persuade Government that no further control over rents was necessary. In other words, this category of persons would then be able to pay an economic rent or obtain suitable alternative accommodation. By and large, the Control of Rent Ordinance confers protection upon the poorer sections of the community, and although Government is fully aware of the price that has to be paid for this protection in terms of unsightly buildings and slum tenements and the discrimination against one section of the community at the expense of another, which is inherent in the present system, Government considers that we have not yet reached the stage when this protection can be thrown overboard.”
“Although the Bill as tabled does not provide the perfect solution to some of the problems raised, and although it may in regard to the compensation formula lack the sort of legal precision to which legislators would aspire, I would suggest it does provide a satisfactory framework in which the policy of the Bill may be carried out and under which the interests of landlords and tenants affected by the Bill will be adequately protected. The Committee's Report was presented on the 13th of June, 1969, as Paper Parl. 3 of 1969. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill as now tabled before the House incorporates the recommendations of the Select Committee. Members will observe from the Report that fairly detailed statements are given therein explaining the reasons for accepting all the major amendments. I need not burden the House by repeating them. It may, however, be of interest to Members if I refer to a basic provision in the Bill upon which representations were made to the Select Committee and which the Committee were unable to accept. I refer to clause 3 dealing with the application of the Bill. Certain representations, particularly those from developers, proposed that the whole of Singapore should be designated as a development area or, alternatively, that any landlord may make an application for the area in which his controlled premises are situated to be declared a development area. It is not difficult to see that the effect of accepting either of these proposals would be that the Tenants' Compensation Board would be flooded with applications for possession of premises and the whole of the provisions of the Control of Rent Ordinance would be nullified, for all controlled premises in Singapore would potentially be liable to decontrol.”
“I am much obliged. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Members of the House will recall that this Bill was referred to Select Committee on the 22nd of May, 1968. The Bill, which is novel in concept and potentially far-reaching in its social and economic impact, has aroused a considerable amount of interest and it has been a subject of much well-informed comment. This interest is evident from the number of representations that were made to Select Committee. In all, thirteen written representations were received and the Committee heard oral evidence from ten of the representors. Representations came not only from landlords, tenants and developers but also from interested professional and business associations, such as the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society, the Singapore Real Estate Valuers Association, the Singapore Planning and Urban Research Group and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. Apart from the representations of the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society, which confined itself to the technical legal aspects of the Bill, almost all the representations were concerned either with the scope of the legislation or with the compensation formula that is proposed in the Bill. There was much difference of opinion in the representations on both these aspects of the Bill. Despite this, or maybe because of it, almost all the representations had something of value to contribute and gave the Select Committee much food for thought. In the result, as Members may observe from the Report, many of the suggestions and proposals in the representations have been adopted and are written into the Bill, and undoubtedly have improved it .”
“Sir, I am afraid I cannot now supply the Member with details. But the point here is that the complaints had been attended to, and if the Member had wanted the work to be done more expeditiously, he could have taken the matter up direct with me. PROPERTY ACQUISITION (Payment of compensation) 13. Mr Lee Teck Him asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether he will consider the payment of reasonable compensation when acquiring lands and houses. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law and National Development (National Development Division) (Mr Ho Cheng Choon) (for the Minister for Law and National Development)(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1966, Government pays reasonable compensation to owners of lands and houses when their property is acquired. The principles for the determination of compensation are provided in section 33 of the Act. The Member may recall that the provisions of the Act were considered by a Select Committee. The Committee also considered representations from various quarters before the Bill was passed. Owners of lands and houses to be acquired are given reasonable and just compensation in accordance with the Act. Furthermore, under this Act, the owners concerned have the right to appeal if they are not satisfied with the compensation given to them. Moreover, under this Act, if a person has a temporary house or fruit trees in somebody else's land, he too would get compensation under the rehousing scheme.”
“I am afraid I do not know of other complaints, Sir. The Public Utilities Board supplies water throughout the island, and not only to the outpost of Punggol. But if there are other low water pressure areas in Punggol, I hope the Member will bring them to the attention of the Public Utilities Board or to me. There are always low water pressure areas in Singapore due either to repairs of pipes or maintenance service of our filtration plants at Woodlands and Bukit Timah. But it is the practice of the Public Utilities Board to give notice of any repairs that are about to be undertaken.”
“Perhaps there is some misunderstanding here. I did say that complaints were received from the hon. Member made, of course, on behalf of the residents in the district. He represents them. Apparently he is doing good work! He has complained and the complaints have not been attended to. But my understanding of the matter is that no complaints were made direct by the residents to the Public Utilities Board. I do not think we need split hairs on this point.”