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 30 of 44.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, not even one complaint of low water pressure in Jalan Perisai or St. Joseph's Lane or Holy Innocents Lane has been received by the Public Utilities Board other than the representation made by the hon. Member on behalf of the residents in these areas. It has been ascertained that the water pressure in Jalan Perisai was and still is satisfactory. But the water pressure in St. Joseph's Lane and Holy Innocents Lane was low due to inadequate sub-mains and consumers' service pipes. Remedial action has been taken by the Public Utilities Board by extending the existing two and a quarter inch sub-main at St. Joseph's Lane by about 500 feet at a cost of $1,000, and by laying a new six-inch main about 1,625 feet long at a cost of $19,000 in Holy Innocents Lane. The water pressure in these areas is now satisfactory.”
“This new section empowers the High Court to declare any person who is habitually and persistently and without any reasonable cause instituting legal proceedings as a vexatious litigant, whereupon such person may be prevented from instituting legal proceedings without first obtaining the leave of the High Court. Such application to the High Court to have a person declared a vexatious litigant can only be made by the Attorney-General. Needless to say, the Bill would be very welcome by all who practise the law as well as those who administer it. One could say, therefore, that this Bill has been long overdue and would set right on a proper basis the administration of justice in our Courts. No more have the records of appeal for the purposes of conformity with the existing law to be sent up to the Registry of the Federal Court in Kuala Lumpur as it is even now being done. The Court would carry on its proceedings in the same manner but without all the anachronistic carry-over of a system which prevailed when we were a state of the Federation. Mr Speaker, 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. Committee on a date to be fixed. DRUGS (PREVENTION OF MISUSE) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.20 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill now before the House, as its very name suggests, provides a proper basis for the administration of justice in our Courts which should really have been introduced soon after we left Malaysia. Unfortunately, the many and varied Problems which we had to deal with upon leaving Malaysia had forced us to continue with the existing system of administration of justice until the present day. All that the Bill purports to do is to set out logically the consequences that flow from our becoming independent on our own with an independent system of administration of justice separate from the system that was introduced while we were part of Malaysia and which had since continued in use. Such anachronistic references to the Federal Court of Appeal, for example, would be done away with. The Supreme Court now consists of the Court of Appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal and the High Court. The Bill generally does no more than to revert to the position obtaining before we joined Malaysia. The powers of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court are the same as heretofore, before we joined Malaysia and after we left Malaysia. There are some minor amendments to the law which can be regarded as technical and which generally relate to drafting technique. Apart from these minor changes, there is the introduction of a new provision in Part VII which deals with miscellaneous matters.”
“"That this 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 Barker].”
“Persons appointed would be mature citizens who have either rendered distinguished public service or attained eminence in their respective walks of life regardless of race, colour or creed as recommended by the Commission.' Sir, surely we are not so short of digits in Singapore that we cannot find 20 men with the necessary legal expertise to sit on this Council and advise this House. The Member for Serangoon Gardens has also asked why a two-thirds majority is required when the Constitution can be amended in this House without a two-thirds majority. Let me put it this way. Is the Presidential Council to sit, deliberate and finally send us its advice only to have such advice flung out by a simple show of hands? I do not think this is the way we should reject such advice in this House. The Council's advice must be considered with some respect and a two-thirds majority will ensure that not all its decisions, or perhaps very few, may be upset here and the advice not taken. The Member for Serangoon Gardens has also enquired whether the Council can receive written representations. The answer is "Yes". Sir, may I end by dealing with the inquiry made by the Member for Telok Blangah? He wants to know why we have made provision for the appointment of temporary Judges and whether these Judges can hear criminal cases which may attract capital punishment. The answer is "Yes, they can." In Singapore today we have acting Ministers who have full powers of the Minister who happens to be away. In the same way, an acting Judge of the High Court will have the same powers as any permanent Judge of that Court- the same powers to hear even the most serious criminal cases which attract capital punishment. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, may I remind Members that this is not Question Time? Apparently all four Members who spoke on the Bill support it not only in principle but in detail. The Member for Sembawang even congratulates me. But then he adds a rider to the effect that we had better be careful whom we appoint to the Presidential Council. The Member for Serangoon Gardens has raised several pertinent points. He is worried about the expertise that would be required -- legal expertise in constitutional interpretation probably of documents of the law which would be required of its members. He is afraid that some of our Judges might be embarrassed should they be party to a decision of the Presidential Council which is over-ruled by a two-thirds, majority in this House; the same Judge having perhaps to decide the same point which may be an issue in the High Court. Sir, perhaps to set the worries of the Members at rest, it would be best for me to refer again to my speech in this House on 21st December, 1966. I quote from Hansard, Vol. 25. No. 14, col 1055: 'Membership of this Council ... would be of two types - (i) Permanent members: This would consist of men of distinction who will be chosen from those who hold or have held high offices, e.g. Cabinet Ministers, former Chief Ministers, the Chief Justice, the Speaker, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Puisne Judges, the Attorney-General and former Permanent Secretaries. There would be no age limit: (ii) Members who are removable: Appointments would be on the advice of Cabinet and would be for a fixed period of, say, three years.”
“It is hoped that far from derogating from the supremacy of Parliament, members of the Council will carry out their functions in the spirit and intendment of this Bill, namely, to assist Parliament in its consideration of Acts of Parliament and ensure that such Acts or other enactments made under the authority of Acts of Parliament are fair and undiscriminating in their effects to all the various peoples in our Republic. In this way it is the hope that confidence and a sense of security and a sense of more than fair play will be engendered throughout the community. Sir, in view of the considerable public interest in this Bill, I intend to send it to a Select Committee. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.15 p.m.”
“But as Members will appreciate, if the Presidential Council is to play its role as a checkpoint to safeguard the rights of the individual, it must have certain powers. Although Members of the Government may be allowed to attend meetings of the Council and to take part in its deliberations, they will not join in reaching its decisions. The functions of the Council will not be confined solely to the scrutiny of Bills enacted by Parliament. Subsidiary legislation as may be made under the authority of an Act of Parliament would come within the purview of the Council, to see whether a particular provision even in subsidiary legislation amounts to a "differentiating measure" or in any other way violate the fundamental liberties of the subject. Whilst it has no power to veto any legislation and so diminish the supremacy of our elected legislature, it does draw public attention to any proposal which it considers discriminatory of any minority group. So any government of the day has to consider the odium it would incur publicly for enforcing majority rule to the disadvantage of a minority, although this is normal democratic practice. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 3.12 p.m. However, certain Bills must of necessity be excluded from the purview of the Council such as Money Bills or indeed any Bill certified by the Prime Minister to be so urgent that it would not be in the public interest to delay its enactment. These and similar provisions do not seriously affect the supremacy of Parliament.”
“Members will also recall the speech I made to this House on the Constitutional Report on 21st December, 1966, when I informed the House that among the various recommendations in regard to the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual and the manner in which various provisions of the Constitution ought to be entrenched, the Government would agree with this recommendation of a Council of State. I had also told the House that although we would differ in detail, in principle we agreed to such a Council being established. Instead of calling this Council the "Council of State", the Government has decided to name it the "Presidential Council", a term we consider more suitable and more appropriate. The Council would consist of a Chairman and ten permanent members appointed for life and ten other members appointed for various periods up to a maximum of three years. As set out in the Explanatory Note, the functions of the Council will be principally to consider and report on matters affecting persons of any racial or religious community in Singapore as may be referred to it by Parliament or by the Government. The Council is also to examine all Bills and subsidiary legislation to ensure that no provisions in our laws would result in unfair discrimination against or otherwise violate any fundamental liberties of the individual set out in our Constitution. It has been argued by some that such a chamber as the Presidential Council comprising non-elected members would be a derogation of the supremacy of Parliament. We have been careful to ensure that this will not be so. In the normal course of events, the Council can only delay the passage of a Bill for s period of one month.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill now before the House introduces two amendments to the Singapore Constitution. Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to introduce a new Part A of the Constitution, and as Members will see it makes provision for the Judiciary. This branch of Government is missing from the Singapore Constitution in its original form because the Order in Council setting out the Constitution envisaged Singapore as a state within the Federation of Malaysia, the judicial power was a Federal matter and was therefore set out in the Federal Constitution. Now that we have become independent on our own, this obvious hiatus in our Constitution is being provided for. This amendment comes at an appropriate moment accompanying the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill which would set out in detail the judicial structure in Singapore. In so far as the Judiciary is a separate branch of Government, it has to be set out separately and enacted in this Part of the Constitution. Clause 3 of the Bill sets out more radical provisions. The new Part IVa of the Constitution deals with the setting up of the Presidential Council. Hon. Members will remember that amongst the various suggestions made by the Wee Chong Jin Report on constitutional provisions for the protection of minority rights in the Republic was this recommendation, namely, the setting up of a Council of State to act as an extra Parliamentary safeguard for the protection of minority rights.”
“In conclusion, I will deal briefly with the suggestion of the Member for Bukit Panjang, which was also touched upon by the Member for Telok Blangah, that the proposed subsection (3) of the new section 178 should be deleted. I informed the House yesterday that it is the intention of Government to send this Bill to Select Committee where representations may be made in writing and representors heard in person if they so desire. When the Bill is taken clause by clause in Committee, every consideration will be given to the Members' suggestion and to any other representations that we may receive. Indeed, Sir, now that only members of one Party have been elected to represent the people of Singapore, representations from the public to Select Committee on this and on any Bill are most welcome. Sir, can I also just touch upon one more point which was raised by the Member for Telok Blangah who was worried about the number of Judges? He said we might require six or more Judges. May I say at this stage that there is no difficulty in appointing more Judges. At the moment, we are short because two Judges, Mr Justice Buttrose and Mr Justice Ambrose, left recently and no one has been appointed since. I do not appoint Judges but I can assure the House that the matter is well being looked after and more Judges will be appointed very soon. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, "That the 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 Barker]. CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.02 p.m.”
“May I also remind the House of Article 125 of the Constitution which provides for the protection of Judges. This is Article 125 of the Federal Constitution which was retained by us when we passed the independence Act in December, 1965. Sir, this Article is being re-enacted in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill now before the House. I refer to clause 2 of this Bill which seeks to enact an Article 52F Clause (3) of this new Article reads: 'If the Prime Minister, or the Chief Justice after consulting the Prime Minister, represents to the President that a Judge of the Supreme Court ought to be removed on the ground of misbehaviour or of inability, from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause, to properly discharge the functions of his office, the President shall appoint a tribunal in accordance with clause (4) of this Article and shall refer that representation to it, and may on the recommendation of the tribunal remove the Judge from office.' Clause (4) of this new Article goes on to say: 'The tribunal shall consist of not less than five persons who hold or have held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court in Singapore, or, if it appears to the President expedient to make such an appointment, persons who hold or have held equivalent office in any part of the Commonwealth, and the tribunal shall be presided over by the member first in the following order, namely, the Chief Justices...' Sir, I am merely bringing the attention of Members to this clause to show that the Judges, once appointed, are firmly seated in their office and practically irremovable.”
“Trial by jury is, therefore, a mere privilege -- a privilege that the law has up to now accorded accused persons (who if convicted are liable to be sentenced to death) to be tried by a jury; a privilege the law has accorded lawyers defending such accused persons to address and perhaps sway a jury. The time has come for this privilege to be taken away. Perhaps I should explain for the benefit of some Members of this House that in our courts today, two types of cases are heard - civil and criminal cases. Civil cases in Singapore have never at any time been heard by a jury. Today, as far as criminal cases are concerned, it is only in cases in the High Court where accused persons are charged with offences that may lead, on conviction, to the imposition of capital punishment, that juries are required. On the average, out of the thousands of cases heard every year in the High Court and the subordinate courts, only about one dozen cases are cases which are tried with a Judge and a jury. This Bill, when enforced, will result in the end of jury trials for these types of cases. In place of the jury, there will be three Judges. What is the main objection to a trial by three Judges? I think it is pretty obvious that three Judges can decide questions of law and even questions of fact better than seven laymen. It has been faintly suggested that the Government can, and the Government may, influence the Judges. Sir, does any reasonable person believe that this Government, whatever its defects and whatever its shortcomings, would stoop so low as to influence our Judges by pressuring them into convicting alleged murderers or kidnappers? I need not assure the House that we have far better things to do.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is significant that out of the 58 Members of Parliament in this House, only five Members spoke on this Bill, and of these five, four are lawyers. The interest shown in this House in the Bill reflects the interest shown outside the House. The rumblings and grumbling heard outside this House are confined mainly to some members of the legal profession who, as I said yesterday, practise mostly in the criminal courts. We have hardly heard a groan or even a squeak against this Bill from the man in the street. Sir, when lawyers get together and protest and begin to shout, "The jury is the lamp of freedom. What is this Government doing? Ah, they are taking the jury away;" some people begin to sit up, some prick up their ears and listen, and even some students begin to get restless. Fortunately, Sir, not many people outside this House have even shown the slightest interest in retaining the jury system. Let us examine more closely this catchy phrase "the jury is the lamp of freedom". What is this freedom? Whose freedom is it? Is it the freedom to kill, or kidnap and hold to ransom and sometimes kill in the process? Is it the freedom to carry firearms with impunity? Or is it the freedom of lawyers, whilst defending an accused person on a capital charge, to address and sway a jury? As you well know, Sir, no such freedom exists. It is not even a right. The fundamental rights of liberty, like the liberty of a person, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, are enshrined in our Constitution. Members will know that in order to make this Bill law, there is no need to amend the Constitution. So to speak of the jury as the lamp of freedom is, with the greatest respect, Sir, in the context of our society, pure and utter balderdash.”
“Because of the vociferous objections from certain quarters, namely from those members of the Bar who practise almost exclusively in the criminal courts, and in order that it may not be said that this Government has without due deliberation done away with a long-standing practice of the administration of the law of crime, we have, Mr Speaker, Sir, decided to send this Bill to Select Committee where such views as may be raised may be given every consideration and where the amendments to the Bill of which I have already given notice will be dealt with. For the information of Members, the amendments(Appendix, Cols. 45-8) that are to be moved are published as Supplement No. 7 dated 11th June, 1969. Lastly, I would like to emphasise the fact that this proposed change in the law has not been conceived impulsively. Considerable thought has been given to this Bill. Our experiences in the recent past cannot be ignored and rather than allow justice to be thwarted through either ignorance or squeamishness, we must be prepared wherever necessary for the well-being of the community to amend the procedural methods of administering the law relating to offences carrying the death penalty. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.47 p.m.”
“If we go back further in point of time, and examine the origins of the jury, we will no doubt find that its original raison d'etre was quite different from its present purpose and use as a method of trial. In regard to criminal matters, while it is true that there are very well-known lawyers, statesmen and eminent Judges in England who have advocated its retention, it would appear most of these arguments for its retention have, as their premise, social conditions where arguments of this kind might be appropriate. But, unfortunately, such arguments that the jury is the bastion of democracy, etc., have very little relevance in Singapore today. And it is not in a light-hearted manner that the Government has sought to bring about this change in the law. In fact, it may be regarded as a logical conclusion to the amendments introduced some nine or ten years ago. We have, in the recent past, done away with trial by jury which used to be the only method of trial in all criminal cases triable in the High Court. The change now envisaged by this Bill has become all the more desirable when one considers the changes to the system introduced in 1960 where instead of jury trials we had substituted trial by a single High Court Judge except for capital offences. Where the changes brought about have been so successfully implemented, may it not be asked, whatever the objections to these changes proposed in this Bill, why have they not been extended to cover all criminal cases irrespective of the penalties involved?”
“I am not for one moment disagreeing with the views of the celebrated Judges in England as to their opinions on the value of the jury system but I would like merely to say that these opinions held by English Judges in the context of the social conditions of the time reflect values deeply rooted in tradition and a way of life. I need hardly add, Sir, that these concepts and values are not altogether relevant in Singapore. Social and economic conditions are very different here. The jury consists of seven not twelve persons. But even in England where the system is so deeply rooted in tradition and way of life, very forceful and deeply critical comments have been passed by eminent Judges as well as laymen advocating reform. The result is even in England today there have been amendments to the law relating to juries. Until very recently all twelve jurymen had to be unanimous in their verdict. Today in England a majority verdict would be acceptable. In this respect, it can be said that our system of jury trial had anticipated these changes in England as here in Singapore it has always been the law that the majority verdicts would suffice. One need not be a student of legal history to know that jury trials have through the ages become less and less important a method of trial even in England, whereas two centuries ago trial by jury was fashionable not only in criminal but also in civil cases. Towards the middle of the last century, civil juries had fallen into desuetude. As a consequence, of course, when the English Common Law was introduced to this part of the world this method of trial in regard to civil matters was never introduced. We have never known of this method of trial in civil suits.”
“I am sure, when I say that it cannot be disputed that professionals will be able to "do the job" better than ordinary laymen. I might add that before this contemplated change in the law was drafted, the views of the Chief Justice and several of the Puisne Judges who normally take criminal cases, as well as those of the legal profession were sought. The Chief Justice and the Judges were in agreement with the proposed amendment. The jury system has always had its protagonists and its critics. We have inherited this system, it must be admitted, from the English Common Law and one of the main arguments for its retention is that it involves the ordinary layman with the administration of justice. Highly theoretical views that such association and involvement by the ordinary layman with the administration of justice as demonstrating an important facet of the meaning of democracy have been oft-times suggested along with several others for its retention, e.g. quotations by well-known and celebrated Judges in England. Lord Halsbury is quoted to have said, "As a rule, all juries are in my opinion more generally right than Judges", and Lord Du Parqc. "When questions of fact had to be decided, there is no tribunal to equal a jury, directed by the cold impartial Judge." Another famous quotation is by Mr Justice Humphreys, one of the greatest of English criminal Judges, who said, "The correctness of a jury's verdict has almost come to be an axiom." But for every such argument one can well find an equal argument for abolishment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill that is now before the House seeks to amend the Criminal Procedure Code in so far as it relates to trial by jury in capital cases in Singapore. As a consequence of the provisions in this Bill, trial by jury in Singapore will be abolished altogether. In place of this method of trial, in every case where an accused person faces a charge, which upon conviction may result in capital punishment being imposed, he will be arraigned and tried before a Bench of three Judges of the High Court. And as Members will see in the provisions of this Bill, three High Court Judges will arrive at their decision as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused either unanimously or by majority. The Government regards this amendment to the law as necessary, in view of the experiences in the past few years in Singapore, if respect for criminal procedure and confidence in our administration of justice is to be maintained. This then is the main reason for the proposed change in the law. It is because of the unreliability of the system of trial by jury - and I am speaking, of course, in the particular context of Singapore -as I have heretofore said, proved by the results of recent cases where although ample evidence of guilt of an accused person had been adduced before the court, accused persons have been acquitted. Speaking for myself I feel that this very important aspect of the administration of justice should not be left in the hands of what are after all seven laymen but rather should be left solely in the hands of the professional Judge who would, to say the least, be able to dispense justice in a more predictable manner. Hon. Members will agree.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your consent and the general assent of the House, I beg to move. That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, this House doth adjourn tonight at 5.15 p.m. instead of 8.00 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in keeping with Government's policy of encouraging investment and participation from the private sector in our urban renewal programme, the sales of urban renewal sites were held on two occasions. On the first sale, the total investment exceeded $90 million, of which about $70 million came from local entrepreneurs and the balance from abroad made up as follows: Malaysia $12 million Hong Kong $ 4 million Taiwan $ 2 million America $ 4½ million. On the second sale, the tenders of which closed on the 14th of March this year for another 14 sites, 57 tenders were received from 38 tenderers. The Member will understand that it is not possible for me to give the amount and breakdown of foreign or local investment until the tenders have been fully processed and the offers accepted. The tenders, at the moment, are in the process of thorough investigation and careful study. Sir, the proposed developments for the various sites include hotels and shopping complexes, multi-storey car parks, office buildings, theatres, residential flats and a recreational Disneyland. RADIO AND TV SINGAPURA (Conversion into statutory corporation) The following Question stood in the name of Mr P. Selvadurai - 16. To ask the Minister for Culture if he will make a statement on the proposed conversion of Radio and TV Singapura into a statutory corporation; the need for such a conversion, and if such a conversion will result in changes in the cultural policy hitherto pursued by the Government in relation to Radio and TV programmes.”
“Mr Speaker, sir, approximately 1,396 acres of land belonging to the Bukit Sembawang Rubber Company Limited, including those at Kuala Simpang in the Sembawang Constituency, are being acquired for the purpose of development by the Housing and Development Board as well as for resettlement and primary production purposes. The resettlement of the residents affected by this acquisition will be car ried out in accordance with the current resettlement policy of the Housing and Development Board. I can assure the Member that, wherever possible, arrangements will be made to resettle resident farmers in the area within which they were previously farming. URBAN RENEWAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (Particulars) 15. Mr Teong Eng Siong asked the Minister for Law and National Development what progress has been made in urban renewal and redevelopment since the Government introduced incentive measures to encourage public participation, and if he will state in detail (i) the amount of local capital involved in the various projects: (ii) the amount of foreign capital involved in the projects: the names of countries participating, and the amount of investment by each of them: and (iii) the types of construction projects planned and whether they include shopping centres, hotels and dwelling houses.”
“Mr Teong Eng Siong asked the Minister for Law and National Development (a) for what purpose land is being acquired at Kuala Simpang in the Sembawang Constituency: (b) what plans have been made to resettle the residents: and (c) whether the Government will allocate land to every farmer affected by the acquisition, to enable him to carry on his livestock and poultry farming without interruption.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Law Revision Commissioners responsible for the present Revised Edition of the Laws of the State of Singapore must have fully considered the amendment to section 4 of the Statute of Frauds 1677 brought about by the United Kingdom Law Reform (Enforcement of Contracts) Act, 1954, and for good reason thought fit to retain the law prior to the Amendment Act of 1954 in so far as Singapore is concerned when our own Civil Law Ordinance (Chapter 24) was reenacted. However, as there is considerable disagreement in regard to the scope and extent of section 5 of the Civil Law Ordinance, perhaps a case exists for our law to be amended on the lines of the United Kingdom Act of 1954. In so far as the Law Reform (Enforcement of Contracts) Act, 1954, affects the Sale of Goods Act of 1893, the matter has been set beyond doubt as we have seen fit not to extend the effect of that amendment here. Section 5A of our Civil Law Ordinance, added by Ordinance 23 of 1955, re-enacts section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, in so far as it applies to Singapore, thus preserving the rule which necessitates a contract of sale of goods of $100 and upwards in value to be evidenced in writing before it can become enforceable. At this stage, Sir, I can only assure the Member for Bukit Panjang that consideration is being given to the desirability of incorporating the amendments brought about by the United Kingdom Act of 1954 by the Law Revision Committee which is presently working on a comprehensive revision of all the laws in Singapore. KUALA SIMPANG (Land acquisition and resettlement of residents) 14.”
“To ask the Minister for Law and National Development if he will consider introducing legislation similar to the Law Reform (Enforcement of Contracts) Act, 1954, of the United Kingdom which amended section 4 of the Statute of Frauds 1677.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Bukit Panjang will no doubt be aware that the Misrepresentation Act, 1967, in the United Kingdom was based on the English Law Reform Committee's Report, and introduced reforms to the law of contracts as well as to the law of torts. The scope of this Act, which has effected some improvements in the law, is far-reaching, not only altering the substantive law but conferring very wide discretionary powers on the courts. The Member will also be aware that the amendments to the law have been the subject of considerable comment and criticism in the United Kingdom. In the circumstances, it is desirable that a careful study of the Act and its effects as shown by the experience of the courts in England should be made before similar legislation is introduced in Singapore. Sir, certain of the provisions of the Civil Evidence Act, 1968, of the United Kingdom are already a part of our law of evidence. The Act, which was passed in the United Kingdom late last year as a result of the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee, alters the laws of evidence in relation to civil proceedings and in particular brings about certain changes in respect of privilege against self incrimination. The Member for Bukit Panjang can rest assured that the Attorney-General's Chambers is carefully considering the changes that have been brought about by this recent Act and the suitability of adopting similar amendments to the law of evidence in Singapore. LAW REFORM (ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTS) ACT, 1954, OF UNITED KINGDOM (Introduction of similar legislation in Singapore) The following Question stood in the name of Mr P. Selvadurai --- 13.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the numbers of tenants of the Housing and Development Board fiats who were served with notices to quit for non-payment of rent for the years 1966 to 1968, the numbers of tenants who were eventually evicted and the number evicted who received public assistance are respectively as follows: (i) one-room flats: In 1966, 353 notices to quit were issued, the number evicted of which was six. There were six public assistance cases. In 1967, 763 notices to quit were issued, of which 10 were evicted and eight were public assistance cases. In 1968, 860 notices to quit were issued, of which nine were evicted and four received public assistance. (ii) two-room flats: In 1966, 236 notices to quit were issued, of which six tenants were evicted and all six were public assistance cases. In 1967, 410 notices were issued, of which five were evicted and three received public assistance. In 1968, 385 notices were issued, of which three were evicted and two were public assistance cases. (iii) three-room flats: For the year 1966, 379 notices to quit were issued, of which ten tenants were evicted and one was a public assistance case. In 1967, 621 notices were issued, of which nine tenants were evicted and one was a public assistance case. In 1968, 620 notices to quit were issued, of which ten tenants were evicted and not one was a public assistance case. MISREPRESENTATION ACT, 1967, AND CIVIL EVIDENCE ACT, 1968, OF UNITED KINGDOM (Introduction of similar legislation in Singapore) The following Question stood in the name of Mr P. Selvadurai --- 12. To ask the Minister for Law and National Development if he will consider introducing legislation similar to the Misrepresentation Act, 1967, and the Civil Evidence Act, 1968, of the United Kingdom.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your consent and the general assent of the House, I beg to move, That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, this House doth adjourn tonight at six o'clock instead of eight o'clock.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. HIGH COST OF SECONDARY EDUCATION IN SINGAPORE 6.16 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, subject to your consent and the general assent of the House, I beg to move, That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Moment of Interruption at this day's sitting be 6.15 p.m. instead of 8.00 p.m., and the time appointed for the termination of the sitting be 6.45 p.m, instead of 8.30 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Hon. Members will recall that the Bill was referred to a Select Committee on 1st August, 1968. Members will also recall that during the Second Reading of the Bill I stated that though the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society had been consulted and many of its suggestions and recommendations had been incorporated in the Bill, it was the intention of the Government to refer the Bill to a Select Committee so as to provide opportunities to other interested bodies and members of the public to present their views on the Bill which is a useful measure for coping with the social and commercial requirements of our developing nation. I am happy to report that six written representations were received and the Select Committee heard oral evidence on all of them. Some of the contributions made to the Committee were most valuable and many of these suggestions have been accepted. The Committee's Report was published on 15th March, 1969, as Paper Parliament 1 of 1969. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill as now tabled before this Parliament incorporates the recommendations of the Select Committee. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. ABORTION BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.39 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the standard type house plan No. 2A of the Chief Building Surveyor's Department is meant to serve as a guide to those intending to build a simple house and who cannot afford to employ an architect to design his house. Minor alterations to the standard type plan are permissible if such alterations are within the provisions of the building regulations, and often applicants do make such alterations to suit their individual tastes. But to revise this standard type plan to incorporate all the alterations generally made will not prevent further requests for alterations to the plan, as individual requirements and tastes differ widely. It is far better, therefore, to allow a certain degree of flexibility in the design of a house plan by retaining the standard plan as a guide and allowing alterations than to have a plan that attempts to represent all requirements and individual tastes and that allows for no changes. REFUSE DISPOSAL PLANTS 25. Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng asked the Minister for Health how many refuse disposal plants are operated by his Ministry, and whether there are any plans to erect more of such plants.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the location of pedestrian bridges is considered by a working committee which includes representatives from the Tra ffic Police, the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. If the hon. Member desires that an overhead bridge be built at Kandang Kerbau, near the market, I would suggest that he makes a representation to this committee for their consideration. CHIEF BUILDING SURVEYOR'S DEPARTMENT (Revision of house plan No. 2A) 24. Mr Ang Nam Piau asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether he is aware that persons intending to use the standard type house plan No. 2A of the Chief Building Surveyor's Department usually make certain alterations to the plan before adopting it; and if steps will be taken to make available a revised plan 2A incorporating the alterations generally made.”
“Sir, of the ten bridges that are to be built this year, seven will be located at the following areas: (a) the junction of Serangoon and Beatty Roads; (b) the junction of Serangoon and Towner Roads; (c) the junction of Kreta Ayer Road and Neil Road; (d) the junction of New Bridge Road and Pagoda Street; (e) New Bridge Road, opposite Hong Lim Park; (f) Paya Lebar Road, near Jalan Afifi; and (g) Upper Serangoon Road, near Simon Road. In fact, the last is under construction and is expected to be completed on the 14th April, 1969. Sites for the other three bridges have as yet not been chosen.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to date, 22 pedestrian overhead bridges have been completed at the total cost of $497,000. Ten more pedestrian bridges are expected to be built in 1969.”
“Sir, I would like to assure the Member for Bukit Panjang that we are not a member of inter national conventions and we have no intention of becoming a signatory to these conventions. The reason, I repeat, is that these conventions are for the benefit of the developed countries who refuse to share their knowledge with us. It is for this reason that a Bill of this nature was not passed before. I have mentioned that three industries have been set up in Jurong producing musical records and it is for the protection of these industries that this Bill is introduced. The Member for Joo Chiat is a little worried about not getting films. I think the answer is quite simple. Unless we pay for our films, the film distributors will not let us have them. Question put, and agreed to. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." -[Mr Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes to Five o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed.”
“May I have your indulgence, Sir? Members may be interested to know, whilst we are on clause 6, that though Singapore has attended many international conferences on protection of copyrights, designs and patents, we are not a signatory to any international convention on copyrights. We have not signed because it is the developed countries that have the know-how and knowledge of these matters. They have in the past refused or have been rather reluctant to help developing countries increase their knowledge of this subject. This Act provides for protection of copyrights and, in fact, it is welcomed by international bodies like the Performing Rights Society of London, it provides them considerable protection from piracy. The amounts paid by Government, as mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, are small when compared to the extent of protection afforded to copyright owners. I think I had better state here openly that we have received representations from these societies. They welcome the Bill, but they have asked us to reconsider the provisions of clause 6. We have considered their representations and decided to proceed with clause 6.”
“The other is the International Federation of Phonographic Industry, to which a sum of $15,000 is paid. In the past, a directive came from the then Governor that we would have to pay royalties, and we did pay. There was no reason given why we should pay. But in the colonial days the directive came from the Governor, and it was complied with. The Performing Rights Society, London, claims to represent international authors and composers in respect of royalties to be paid. This body and the International Federation of Phonographic Industry have claimed in recent years an increase in the sum payable to them on the grounds that we have extended the hours of radio broadcasts and that recently we have introduced television. We have considered this problem. Let me put it this way. Broadcasting in Singapore is a Government institution. The motivation is, therefore, not profit. Whatever entertainment and information we provide through this medium is a kind of education for our people. It is unlike other commercial stations in the world, if it were, I would have supported the payment of royalties. Although Radio and Television Singapura is partially commercialised, as I said earlier, the entertainment and other programmes provided through this medium are not profit motivated. As such, we feel that it is imperative that we should keep the cost of broadcasting as low as possible for the benefit of the public.”
“If I may deal with the Member for Telok Blangah first. If anyone tapes from Radio and Television Singapura and uses it outside, it will be piracy. If the Member for Telok Blangah has a tape recorder at home, tapes and records from T.V. Singapura and uses it in public, he will be liable to the penalties provided for under this Act. The Member for Joo Chiat wants to know whether there is similar legislation to that provided in clause 6 elsewhere. The answer is - if there is, I am not aware of such legislation. The Member for Bukit Panjang talks of expropriation and he wants to know what is the amount involved. I am afraid I cannot give him the details. I am not the Minister for Culture. Unfortunately, he is not here. But I am sure he will be happy to provide the Member with figures. But I would like to assure the Member that we have no intention of making this Bill retrospective. What is past is past. This Bill provides for the future. 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] 4.41 p.m. Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 - Question proposed, "That clause 6 stand part of the Bill." The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Sir, I crave your indulgence in taking this opportunity to answer the query raised by the Member for Bukit Panjang. The Broadcasting Department has been paying royalty fees to some international bodies. In fact, they are United Kingdom based organisations. One is the Performing Rights Society, London. We pay the Society a fixed sum of about $25,000 a year.”
“Clause 6 of the Bill further provides that the copyright in a musical work is not infringed by the Government when it makes a record, tape or other device in respect of that work solely for the purpose of being used in radio or television broadcast. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“To facilitate the prosecution of such offences, clause 5 of the Bill provides that an affidavit made before a notary public by or on behalf of the owner of the copyright in any gramophone record may be admitted in evidence and shall be prima facie evidence of the matters stated therein. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 4.31 p.m. As regards the second problem, the Broadcasting Department of the Ministry of Culture is paying to account a fixed sum each year to the Performing Rights Society, London, for the performing right in sound recordings broadcast over Radio and Television Singapura. Claims for royalties have also been received by the Broadcasting Department from the International Federation of Phonographic Industry and the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society. It is estimated that if all these claims have to be met, the Broadcasting Department will have to pay quite a substantial sum each year in respect of its use of sound recordings made abroad. In addition, expenditure will also have to be incurred by the Broadcasting Department to keep a record or records of the number of times each sound recording is broadcast for the purpose of determining the royalties payable to these organisations. As Radio and Television Singapura provide an essential service, it is in the interest of the public that the cost of this service be kept as low as possible. Hence the Bill provides that the copyright in a musical work or gramophone record is not infringed by the Government when it causes the musical work or gramophone record to be heard in public by means of a radio or television broadcast.”
“Thus clause 3 of the Bill provides that any person who makes, reproduces, imports for sale, exposes or offers for sale or has in his possession for sale any pirated copies of any gramophone record, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000, and in the case of a second or a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to both such imprisonment or fine. However, it shall be a defence if such person proves that he had no reason to suspect that he was dealing with pirated copies of gramophone records, that he had given all information in his power to the police or the prosecutor, and that he had acted innocently in the matter. A police officer is also empowered to arrest without warrant any person who sells or exposes for sale any pirated copies of any gramophone record in a public place. Any person who has in his possession five or more pirated copies of any gramophone record shall be deemed to be in possession of such copies for sale. Provision is made under clause 4 of the Bill to empower a Magistrate to grant a search warrant authorising any police officer to enter the premises named therein to search for and seize any copies of any gramophone record which appear to be pirated copies. All copies of a gramophone record so seized shall be brought before a court and, if they are proved to be pirated copies, shall be delivered to the owner of the copyright of such record or dealt with as the court thinks fit.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The law enforced in Singapore relating to copyright is the Copyright Act, 1911, of the United Kingdom, as modified by the Copyright Ordinance (Chapter 176). The Copyright Act, 1911, was repealed by the Copyright Act, 1956, of the United Kingdom. However, the repeal did not apply to Singapore and the 1956 Act was never extended to Singapore. Sir, it is not the intention of this Bill to make comprehensive changes to the present law as was done by the 1956 Act of the United Kingdom. The Bill, as Members will note, is quite limited in scope and deals with two immediate problems - to prevent the piracy of gramophone records and to exempt the Government from infringement of copyright in respect of radio and television broadcasting. As regards the first problem, there has been over the past year or so a large increase in the importation and sale of pirated records of musical works with subsisting copyright. Many of such pirated records are of sound recordings made in Singapore and the royalties which are due to local artistes and composers and the employment of local musicians are somewhat in jeopardy. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.27 p.m. The newly established industries -there are three of them - for the manufacture of phonograph records in Singapore are also seriously threatened. For these reasons, penalties for the infringement of copyright in gramophone records are urgently required.”
“Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. COPYRIGHT (GRAMOPHONE RECORDS AND GOVERNMENT BROADCASTING) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.24 p.m.”
“Sir, the Bill seeks to increase the membership of the Board from nine to 12. The Member for Crawford wants to go further. I do not know whether he is right, but I would appeal to him to let this go for some time, and if we find that 12 are not sufficient, we will come back here and get more members on the Board. But a dozen is quite a big number and any Board beyond that number might become too big and unwieldy. The Member is correct when he says that with the retirement of the previous Deputy Chairman of the Board, there are hardly any others left with engineer ing experience. But new members of the Board will be appointed soon and I assure the Member that at least one will be an engineer who will be of great assistance in the Board. Of course, I must remind the Member that there are engineers in the Public Utilities Board and, if not in the Board, at least in the Electricity Department or the Water Department or the Gas Department. As for standing committees, there are standing committees but they have no blessing of the law behind them. Hence this Bill, one of the clauses of which empowers the Board to delegate its powers and duties to smaller subcommittees. As for some of the other points raised by the Member, I will not reply to him since you, Mr Speaker, Sir, have ruled him out of order. But I can make one suggestion. Perhaps on some other occasion if he will file questions in Parliament on previous commissions and what the Public Utilities Board is doing about de-salinisation, I will do my best to answer him. 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].”
“The new subsection (1) introduced by clause 6 of the Bill gives the Board power to appoint committees from among its members. The new subsection (2) under this clause will enable the Board to delegate to its committees certain of its powers, functions and duties. At present the Board is empowered under section 22 (1) of the Ordinance to delegate such powers, functions and duties only to its employees. The enlargement of the membership of the Board, and the power to appoint committees to which certain powers, functions and duties can be delegated will not only relieve the Board of some of its onerous duties but will also enable the Board to conduct its affairs more expeditiously. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.13 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Public Utilities (Amendment) Bill proposes a number of amendments which, it is considered, in the light of experience gained in the administration of the Public Utilities Ordinance since it was brought into force in 1963, will make administration more effective. The Bill makes provision for the transfer of powers vested in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara (now the President) under the Ordinance to the Minister. The amendments provided for this, under clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, will bring the Ordinance in line with the Port of Singapore Authority Ordinance, 1963, the Housing and Development Ordinance, 1959, and the Telephone Board Ordinance (Cap. 107), wherein the appointments to the Board thereunder are made by the Minister. With the expansion of the Public Utilities Board's functions and activities and the tremendous increase in the work which members of the Board have to undertake, it has become necessary to expand the membership of the Board. It is, therefore, proposed, under clause 2 of the Bill, to increase the member ship of the Board from nine to 12. Consequent on this increase, the quorum at meetings of the Board will also be increased from five to seven, which is in clause 4 of the Bill. Provision is made under clause 5 of the Bill for the Public Utilities Board to collect fees for services rendered by the Government or any of its departments or any statutory body. The amendment will also empower the Board to grant or guarantee loans to its employees to enable them to purchase houses for their use or for any other purposes specifically approved by the Board as being likely to increase the efficiency of the employees.”
“Sir, first, if I may deal with the Member for Sembawang who asked whether the subsequent marriage of the child, when he is of age, will make him legitimate. It can never make him legitimate. If he marries, his children will be legitimate. With regard to the queries by the Member for Joo Chiat and the Member for Serangoon Gardens, I think they have been answered by the Member for Bukit Panjang. But there are difficulties when children are born out of wedlock, because sometimes the father is disclosed in the birth certificate or a notification of birth. Sometimes, of course, the father's name is not disclosed. But if the children are illegitimate, then the father, whoever he may be, has no right whatsoever over the child. It is the mother who has the sole right to the child. Therefore, the citizenship of the child will follow that of the mother. 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. PUBLIC UTILITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.10 p.m.”
“Sir, legitimacy has nothing to do with citizenship. Whether the children are born out of wedlock or whether or not their parents are married does not affect their citizenship. But if the children are illegitimate and if the father or mother dies intestate, they do not share in the distribution of the estate unless, of course, there is a will. But illegitimate children can still be citizens - if that is what has been worrying the Member for Joo Chiat.”
“Sir, if the parents refuse to marry, then, of course, the children will he illegitimate. The Legitimacy (Amendment) Bill covers only cases where parents marry after a child or children are born. So until the date of the marriage, the children are illegitimate. But when they marry, that act of marrying makes the children legitimate. But unless the parents are married, I am afraid the children will still be illegitimate.”