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 9 of 44.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with respect that we again bow before you in the Chair. The business in this House will continue to be conducted under your guidance, and we will continue to abide by your rulings. But may I say, without any disrespect. Sir, that it would be less painful to be ruled out of order in this House than to lie prostrate on your operating table, whilst your gloved hands reach out for a scalpel. Your fame as a surgeon is well known in Singapore and has spread throughout the region. You could, with ease and distinction, occupy one of the front benches on this side of the House. But then I am not the Prime Minister and I cannot read his mind. But our gain will mean the loss for those whose lives may depend on the skill of your steady hands. Honourable Members, old and new join me in congratulating you. Sir, on your reelection to the Chair. Once again this House will have to manage with Members all from one party. This is the choice of the people. This position has not changed since 1965 when we gained sovereignty and independence and the then Members of the Opposition walked out of this House abandoning their faith in Parliamentary democracy to take to the streets. They have regretted it ever since. As a result we have all members from one party. Debates in this House have become. perhaps, less interesting and certainly less heated. But the burden on the Opposition within the Party has increased. Back-Benchers should let their conscience be their guide and speak freely with open minds. Even Parliamentary Secretaries can do so provided they do not criticise their own Ministries. I am not inciting them to mount a united offensive against the Executive but merely exhorting them to speak without inhibition and without constraint.”
“But our floods do not last long and will not reach the proportions of a disaster. FINANCIAL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) BILL First Reading 3.58 p.m.”
“In the last decade Singapore has seen a boom in the building construction industry. Many new roads and highways have also been constructed. Hills have been levelled and swamps and low-lying areas, which served as flood basins, have been filled in. As a result, rain water no longer seeps into the ground as much as before, but runs off rapidly and sometimes causes floods. When a heavy rainfall coincides with a high tide, especially a high spring tide, floods occur in some areas and sometimes even in areas which were never flooded before. The construction of the canal near the Turf Club to divert flood waters from Bukit Timah to Ulu Pandan has alleviated but not eradicated flooding along that major trunk road. The construction of another canal to divert flood waters in the Bukit Timah canal from Whitley Road to Sungei Whampoa is therefore being reconsidered. A second canal will also be constructed along Orchard Road to alleviate flooding along that road. The canal will be covered over and used as a pedestrian mall. Last year Government approved a five-year Drainage Development Programme costing about $148 million. Under this plan, drainage work has already started on the widening and concrete lining of drains and canals in the Kallang, Ulu Pandan. Pang Sua, Bedok and Geylang Serai areas. Existing drains and canals as well as those under construction will be sufficiently large to cope with average rainfall. It will not be economical both from the project cost and land use aspects to build extra large canals for exceptional storms that may occur infrequently. Despite all that is being done to alleviate flooding, we cannot eradicate floods completely. More rain is expected in the next month or so, and if the rain is heavy and coincides with a high tide, flooding will occur.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the practice of this House to have just one hour for Question Time. But as there are 19 questions and merely four Bills on today's Order Paper. I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move a motion to enable Questions for Oral Answer to be taken after 3.30 p.m, today.”
“19 hectares of land shown coloured blue and dredging of approximately 126.59 hectares of the foreshores and seabed shown hatched blue on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 3/76", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Resolved, "That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 2701, approves the reclamation by Government of approximately 70.28 hectares of foreshores and seabed coloured yellow and the dredging of approximately 48.19 hectares of land shown coloured blue and dredging of approximately 126.59 hectares of the foreshores and seabed shown hatched blue on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 3/76", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. ADJOURNMENT Resolved. "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed."-[Mr E.W. Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three minutes to Five o'clock p.m, to a date to be fixed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. Sir, the Jurong Town Corporation proposes to develop about 327 hectares (809 acres) of the land at Sembawang as shown edged purple on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 3/76", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House, for industrial use. The proposed development necessitates the reclamation of about 70 hectares of the foreshores and seabed and parts of Singes Simpang, Sungei Khatib Bongsu and Sungei Seletar as shown coloured yellow on the plan, and the creation of two artificial channels at the mouths of Sungei Simpang and Sungei Seletar to provide additional sea-frontage land for marine and marine-orientated industries, by excavating about 48 hectares of dry land shown coloured blue on the plan. and dredging about 1 27 hectares of the foreshores and seabed shown hatched blue. This project will cost about $60 million (including reclamation and dredging works) and will take about four years to complete. The necessary fill will be obtained by excavating the dry land and dredging the foreshores and seabed mentioned earlier, as well as by levelling hills in the Sungei Kadut Industrial Estate. On completion of the reclamation, the reclaimed land will be proclaimed as State land and will be alienated to the Jurong Town Corporation on terms and conditions to be agreed with the Commissioner of Lands. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. * The motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of approximately 70.28 hectares of foreshores and seabed coloured yellow and the dredging of approximately 48.”
“The period of sale by legal personal representatives of residential properties belonging to deceased persons who died on or after 11th September, 1973, where the beneficiaries are foreign persons, has been extended to ten years, instead of five years, from the date of the death of the deceased persons. The established procedure to facilitate foreigners in seeking approvals for the purchase of residential properties will continue to apply to permanent residents as well as other foreigners. Applications from those making an economic contribution to Singapore or those with special merit will be favourably considered by the Minister. However, approvals granted will be subject to the limitation of one residential unit of land not exceeding 15.000 sq, ft, to be used only for the occupation of the applicant and his family. Foreign companies which are of economic benefit to Singapore will be allowed to purchase or acquire and retain residential properties for the occupation of their chief executives. Such approvals, however, will be subject to reasonable limits on the number of such executives and the area of land for each residence. Though this Bill will take effect retrospectively from the 11th day of September 1973, the penalties by way of a fine or imprisonment imposed for offences under the Bill are not to be made retrospective before the appointed day. This is as it should be. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. SEMBAWANG (Reclamation/Dredging Project) 4.33 p.m.”
“Now. Sir, I beg to move. "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Sir, the Select Committee on this Bill received 1 5 written representations and heard 13 representors. Some of the contributions were valuable and a number of suggestions have been accepted. The Report of the Select Committee was presented to this House on 5th May, 1976, as Paper ParI. 2 of 1976. The Bill, as set out at Appendix I of the Report, incorporates the amendments made by the Select Committee. I shall not burden the House with explanations in respect of all the amendments so made, as these are contained at Appendix V. Explanations have also been given in the Committee of this House for the necessity to amend further certain provisions of the Bill as submitted by the Select Committee. I wish, however, to emphasise the fact that this legislation is concerned only with residential property and that industrial and commercial real estate as well as residential flats in buildings of six or more storeys, and units in approved condominiums which are not subject to any restriction, may be freely purchased and sold by citizens and non-citizens alike. Foreign companies are now to be given 10 years from 11th September 1973 to dispose of their residential properties except in cases where specific approval to retain such properties has been granted by the Minister. However. foreign natural persons or societies owning residential properties as at 11th September, 1973 will not be required to dispose of such properties; this is specifically provided for in clause 6.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 38, line 24, after "thereof." to insert "and arising from, relating to or connected with residential property.". This is a purely phraseological amendment which is being made for the purpose of added clarity. Amendment agreed to. Amendments made: In page 38, line 28, after "thing", to insert ", arising from, relating to or connected with residential property.-[Mr E. W. Barker] In page 38, line 36, after "otherwise", to insert arising from, relating to or connected with residential property.".-[Mr E. W. Barker] Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments. Third Reading”
“Thus - (a) the percentage shareholding held by citizens (and taxpaying residents) in foreign companies to qualify for an exemption is reduced from 80% to 50% in the amendment now proposed; and (b) the required percentage need not be held exclusively by citizens, but may be held by citizens or taxpaying residents or by both citizens and taxpaying residents in order to arrive at the "more than 50 per cent" or majority criterion. Amendment agreed to, Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 30 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 35, to leave Out lines 10 to 15 inclusive, and insert a new sub-clause (2)* as set Out in the Notice of amendments. Sub-clause (2) of this clause introduced by the Select Committee has been amplified to the advantage of foreign companies. A special power to exempt is given to the Minister (subject to such conditions as he may consider necessary) where a foreign company is able to satisfy him that more than *New sub-clause (2) reads as follows: "(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where a foreign company is able to satisfy the Minister that more than fifty per cent of the total voting rights attributable to the share capital of such foreign company is held by - (a) members who are citizens; or Cap. 141. (b) members who are "resident in Singapore" within the meaning of the Income Tax Act and who pay the tax imposed under that Act; or (c) members mentioned in both paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection. the Minister may. by notification in the Gazette and subject to such conditions as he, may consider necessary, exempt such foreign company from all or any of the provisions of this Act". 50% of its share capital is held either by members who are citizens or by members resident in Singapore who pay Singapore income tax, or by both such categories of persons, that is, citizens and tax-paying residents. The amended sub-clause represents a more liberal approach to the exemption of foreign companies than at present in the Bill.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 23, line 18, to leave Out "11th day of September, 1976" and insert "1st day of July. 1977". In this clause, the requirement is that in every instrument of transfer of land lodged with the Registrar of Titles on or after 11th September, 1976, the citizenship status and other particulars of the purchaser, or if the purchaser is a body corporate, the place of registration or incorporation of the body corporate, shall be specified. This date is also being amended to the 1St day of July, 1977. Amendment agreed to. Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 22 -”
“Sir, I beg to move. In page 23, line 2, to leave Out "September", and insert "July". In page 23, line 3, to leave out "1976", and insert "1977". An identical change in the date is being made in sub-clause (4) of clause 9 in respect of particulars to be furnished of the citizenship status of the members and trustees of Singapore societies. Amendments agreed to. Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 21, line 29, to leave Out "September", and insert "July". In page 21, line 30, to leave Out "1976", and insert "1977". Owing to the lapse of time in the enactment of the Bill, the dates in three procedural clauses require to be amended. In sub-clause (4) of clause 8, particulars of the citizenship status of members and directors of Singapore companies are required to be filed with the Controller of Residential Property on or before "the 1st day of September of each year (as from 1976)". This date is being amended to "the 1st day of July of each year (as from 1977)". Amendments agreed to. Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 7, line 28, after "floor", to insert - "or any estate or interest in any flat or dwelling-house shown as a unit in an approved plan bearing the title "Condominium" and issued by the competent authority under the Planning Act". This amendment to sub-clause (3) of clause 2 seeks to place flats and dwelling-houses in condominiums in the same position as flats in buildings containing six or more storeys so that this Act will not apply to all these types of habitation. Multi-storey development has become a feature of the Singapore scene, but it is desirable that we encourage the erection of not only high-rise but also low-rise buildings in the same complex in order to stimulate a balanced and attractive development. "Flat" and "dwelling-house" are defined in the Bill at clause 2(1), page 3. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 -”
“Now, Sir. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 4.22 p.m. Clause 2 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, line 10, to leave out "advisory service" and insert "acting in an advisory capacity". Sir, this amendment has been suggested by the Council of the Law Society to make it clearer that a full-time member of the academic staff of the Faculty of Law of the University of Singapore who is a qualified person can only act in an advisory capacity and not in any other capacity of a practising advocate and solicitor, for instance. appearing in court. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment, read a Third time and passed. PENSIONS (EXPATRIATE OFFICERS) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.15 p.m.”
“Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, under the existing provision of section 36 of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 217), any full-time member of the academic staff of the Faculty of Law of the University of Singapore is only permitted to act in an advisory capacity when he is instructed by a practising advocate and solicitor. This has resulted in narrowing the scope of advisory work of University law teachers. The Bill now before this House seeks to remove this limitation, so that persons wishing to seek legal opinions or advice from our University law teachers may do so without going through practising advocates and solicitors, and thus enable greater use to be made of the advisory services which our University law teachers can offer, especially in the fields of law in which they have specialised knowledge. The removal of the limitation made under the Bill cannot, however, apply to all University law teachers but only to those who are "qualified persons" within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act. A "qualified person" as defined in section 2 of the Act briefly means an LLB graduate of our University or a person who is professionally qualified as a barrister or solicitor in the United Kingdom. It is necessary to impose this requirement since there may be University law teachers who are not qualified persons within the meaning of the Act, and it is not the intention to accord such persons, whether within or outside the University, this special right to render legal opinions or act in an advisory capacity. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill-[Mr E.W. Barker].”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Honourable Members will recall that at the last sitting of this House on 23rd July, 1976 a White Paper on the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Delineation Committee was presented to Parliament as Command 10 of 1976, and that I made a statement in this House on the acceptance by the Government of the Committee's recommendations. The Committee recommended the creation of ten new constituencies and the abolition of six existing ones, resulting in a net increase of four and bringing the total number of constituencies to 69. Sir, section 22 of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 50) provides that each constituency should return one Member to serve in Parliament. Article 23(1) of the Constitution enables the Legislature to provide by law for the number of Members to be elected to serve in Parliament in lieu of the number of 51 prescribed in that Article. The Legislature increased the number of Members of Parliament to 58 in 1 967 and to 65 in 1971. This Bill seeks to increase the number of Members of Parliament to be elected at the next general elections to 69. Once this Bill has the assent of the President, we will be ready for the next general elections. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill-[Mr E. W. Barker] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ARCHITECTS BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.21 p.m.”
“BILLS INTRODUCED INFECTIOUS DISEASES BILL "to amend and consolidate the law relating to quarantine and the prevention of infectious diseases", presented by the Minister for Health (Dr Toh Chin Chye); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. ESTATE DUTY (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Estate Duty Act (Chapter 137 of the Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Mr Hon Sui Sen); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Asian Development Bank Act (Chapter 59 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Hon Sui Sen; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. PARLIAMENTARY MEMBERSHIP BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.17 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member of Parliament for Sepoy Lines, Mr Wee Toon Boon, faced a total of five different charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the Court of first instance. The District Judge convicted him on each and every one of these charges, and imposed a sentence of three years' imprisonment on the fourth charge, and sentences of six months' imprisonment in respect of each of the other charges. As a result of the conviction and sentence of three years' imprisonment imposed on the fourth charge, Mr Wee would have been, by virtue of the provisions of Article 29 of the Constitution of Singapore, automatically disqualified from remaining as a Member of this House. However, on appeal, the conviction on the fourth charge was quashed and the sentence of three years' imprisonment set aside. The appeal in respect of the other four charges was dismissed and the sentence of six months' imprisonment on each charge was affirmed. An application made on Mr Wee's behalf to take the appeal further to the Court of Criminal Appeal was heard and dismissed on 10th August this year. Thus, all possible appeals have been exhausted and the criminal proceedings against Mr Wee have been brought to a close. The Attorney-General has advised that as the provisions of Article 29 of the Constitution provide quite specifically that, in order to be disqualified from being a Member of Parliament, a Member so convicted must be sentenced in respect of an offence for a term of not less than 12 months' imprisonment or to a fine of not less than $2,000. Mr Wee would not, by virtue of his convictions and sentences, be disqualified from remaining as a Member of Parliament. Mr Wee accordingly remains a Member of this House. 3.15 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of approximately 242.82 hectares (600 acres) of the foreshore and sea-bed at Pulau Sudong, as shown coloured in pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 4/76" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, it is proposed to reclaim about 242.82 hectares (600 acres) of the foreshore and seabed at Pulau Sudong. I have a copy of the relevant plan and another copy is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of Members. The island will initially be utilised by the Sentosa Development Corporation to provide recreational facilities which will include swimming lagoons. The island will eventually be required for industrial purposes and then transferred to the Jurong Town Corporation on terms and conditions to be agreed with the Commissioner of Lands. The reclamation will be undertaken by the Port of Singapore Authority as agent of the Government. It is expected to take about three years to complete, and to cost about S$64 million. Fill for the reclamation will be obtained by dredging the navigational channels of the Main Strait Shoal and Sawa Pemalang Shoal. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved. That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of approximately 242.82 hectares (600 acres) of the foreshore and sea-bed at Pulau Sudong, as shown coloured in pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 4/76" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. 3.07 p.m. DEPARTMENTAL TITLES”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. "That the Bill be now read a Third time." This Bill was committed to a Select Committee on the 19th August last year. The Committee received two written representations and heard oral evidence from the representative of the Law Society of Singapore. The Committee's Report was published and presented to Parliament on 24th June, 1976, as Paper ParI. 6 of 1976. Sir, one of the written representations pointed out certain inconsistencies in clause 2 of the Bill and the Select Committee has made amendments to the clause. The proviso to subsection (1) of section 14 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act proposed by clause 2 Of the original Bill has been deleted, as Government does riot desire to extend the powers conferred by subsection (1) of this section to police officers below the rank of sergeant. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. RECLAMATION AT PULAU SUDONG 3.05 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Sir, the Evidence (Amendment) Bill was committed to a Select Committee on the 19th August last year. The Committee received four written representations and heard oral evidence from representatives of the Workers' Party and those of the Law Society of Singapore. The Report of the Committee was published and presented to this House on 24th June, 1976 as Paper ParI. 5 of 1976. The Bill as set out in the Report and now tabled before this House contains amendments made to the original Bill by the Committee. The recommendation of the Law Society, that the safeguards provided by subsection (2) of the existing section 132 of the Evidence Act should also be made applicable to the new subsection which the Bill proposed to add to the said section 132, has been accepted. A new subsection (6) for section 132 has accordingly been inserted in clause 7 of the Bill. This new subsection will ensure that no answer which an accused or his spouse is compelled to give shall - (a) expose the accused to any proceedings for some other offence or for the recovery of a penalty, or be proved against him in any such proceedings; or (b) expose the spouse to any proceedings for an offence or for the recovery of a penalty, or be proved against the spouse in any such proceedings. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. CRIMINAL LAW (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL (As reported from Select Committee) Order for Third Reading read. 3.03 p.m.”
“Acting on the recommendation of the Law Society the Select Committee amended the original Bill to make inadmissible hearsay statements made after the commencement of investigations to prevent people fabricating evidence. Another amendment made extended the safeguards contained in subsection (2) of the proposed new section 371 D to trials in the Subordinate Courts so that, without the leave of the court, hearsay statements may not be given in evidence at trials before the High Court as well as before the Subordinate Courts unless a notice containing the required information has been served on the other parties to the proceedings within the prescribed time. Mr Speaker, Sir, due weight was given to every representation received and if any recommendation was not accepted, the Select Committee had good reasons for rejecting it. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. EVIDENCE (AMENDMENT) BILL (As reported from Select Committee) Order for Third Reading read. 3.01 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. "That the Bill be now read a Third time." The Select Committee's Report on this Bill was presented to Parliament on 24th June, 1976, as Paper Parl. 4 of 1976 and the Bill as set out in the Report and now tabled before this House embodies the recommendations of the Committee. The vital clause in the Bill and the one which attracted the greatest interest is clause 5 which seeks to do away with the legal requirement to caution a person under arrest and to restrict the right of silence of the accused. From its provisions flow a number of other important provisions which enable inferences to be drawn from the accused's failure to mention relevant facts when charged and from his failure to give evidence when or should his defence be called upon. The Law Society of Singapore, noting that the abovementioned provisions introduced a completely new concept in the administration of justice, added that in principle it supported this concept but recommended certain safeguards. Some of the recommendations of the Law Society were accepted and the original Bill has been amended accordingly. For instance, the proviso to subsection (5) of section 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code appearing in clause 5 of the Bill has been amended to remove the discretion given to the court to refuse to admit a statement obtained by inducement, threat or promise. The Select Committee also deleted from clause 6 of the Bill the provision enabling adverse inferences to be drawn from the accused's failure to state relevant facts when questioned by a police officer before he is charged with an offence or officially informed that he may be prosecuted for it.”
“PREVENTION OF POLLUTION OF THE SEA (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act, 1971 (No. 3 of 1971)", presented by the Minister of State for Communications (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament and to be printed. ARCHITECTS BILL "to provide for the registration of architects and to regulate the qualifications and practice of architects; and to repeal the Architects Act (Chapter 213 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister of State for National Development (Dr Tan Eng Liang); read the First time, to be read a Second time on (he next available sitting of Parliament and to be printed. LEGAL PROFESSION (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 217 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr E.W. Barker; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament and to be printed. PENSIONS (EXPATRIATE OFFICERS) BILL "to give effect to the Public Officers' Pension (Singapore) Agreement, 1976, between the Government of the Republic of Singapore and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Mr Hon Sui Sen); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament and to be printed. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL (As reported from Select Committee) Order for Third Reading read. 2.56 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a White Paper on the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Delineation Committee has been presented to Parliament as Command 10 of 1976. The Government has decided to accept the recommendations of the Committee. The recommendations, inter a/ia, of the Committee will bring the electorates of all constituencies within the range of 13,000 to 20,000 electors. Also in re-delineating the boundaries of 54 of the existing 65 constituencies, the following six constituencies, whose electorates are very unlikely to increase substantially, have been eliminated:- 1 Bras Basah 2 Crawford 3 Hong Lim 4 Kampong Kapor 5 Sepoy Lines 6 Stamford Mr Speaker, Sir, as the total electorate for the next General Elections is expected to increase by 180.000 electors, the Committee recommended the creation of ten new constituencies, namely:- 1 Ang Mo Kio 2 Bedok 3 Boon Lay 4 Braddell Heights 5 Brickworks 6 Buona Vista 7 Khe Bong 8 Kolam Ayer 9 Marine Parade 10 Radin Mas The acceptance of the Committee's recommendation will therefore increase the number of electoral divisions from 65 to 69. This increase will come into effect only at the next general elections, which means the status quo in this House remains. Consequent to the increase of the electoral divisions to 69, it is necessary again to introduce the Parliamentary Membership Bill, 1976, to provide for the increase in the number of Members to 69. I will be tabling the Bill in a few moments, Sir. BILLS INTRODUCED 2.53 p.m. PARLIAMENTARY MEMBERSHIP BILL "to vary the number of elected Members or Parliament", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Law and the Environment (Mr E. W. Barker); read the First time, to be read a Second time on (he next available sitting of Parliament and to be printed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir. Members will recall that the Residential Property Bill was committed to a Select Committee sometime last year. The Committee has completed its hearings and submitted its Report to this House in May of this year. The Report has been circulated as Paper Parl. 2 of 1976. The Committee's Report as well as subsequent representations on the Bill have been reviewed by Government. The Bill incorporating the recommendations made by the Select Committee, together with a few other amendments considered desirable in the light of the review, will be taken through its Third Reading at the next sitting of Parliament, which will probably be in a month's time. PARLIAMENTARY MEMBERSHIP BILL (Statement by the Minister for Law and the Environment)”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to discourage smoking and minimise nuisance to non-smokers in public places, the Government has banned smoking in cinemas, theatres, lifts and buses. The advertisement and promotion of the sale of tobacco and cigarettes over television. newspapers, magazines and in public places has also been banned. Television Singapore frequently warns the old and the young not to smoke away their lives and their money. While I appreciate the Member's concern for our youth, it is not considered appropriate to introduce legislation to prohibit smoking by the young under a certain age. Apart from the practical difficulties of enforcement, legislation by itself would not be sufficient to discourage the habit. Public health education on the health hazards of smoking and proper parental guidance would be more effective in the long run. EMIGRATION OF PROFESSIONALS (Particulars) 4. Mr Yeo Choo Kok asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Education (a) how many Singaporeans in the various professions have emigrated to other countries in the past four years; (b) what are the countries those professionals have gone to; and (c) whether some professionals, who had emigrated, have ever sought to return to Singapore.”
“Sir, before I move the Adjournment motion, today has been a rather short sitting but in the last two weeks we have had longer sittings. May I express on behalf of Members of this House our thanks for the patience you have shown in dealing with various Members who spoke in more than one language.”
“1/76" which is deposited in the Land Office. Singapore. ADJOURNMENT”
“Sir, I beg to move,the motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. * The motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of approximately 15 hectares of foreshore and seabed at Pulau Renggit (Pulau Renggis), as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/76" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, the Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC) will be developing Pulau Renggit or Pulau Renggis as a recreational resort for the public. For the purposes of this development, the SDC proposes to reclaim approximately 15 hectares of the foreshore and seabed at Pulau Renggit as shown coloured pink on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/76", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. Sir, this reclamation which will be undertaken by the Port of Singapore Authority on behalf of the SDC as agent of the Government is expected to be completed in two years' time at an estimated cost of $5« million inclusive of the foreshore protection. Fill for the reclamation will be obtained from the Sisters' shore. On completion of the reclamation, the reclaimed land will be proclaimed as State land and will be alienated to the SDC on terms and conditions to be agreed with the Commissioner of Lands, Sir, I beg to move, Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of approximately 15 hectares of foreshore and seabed at Pulau Renggit (Pulau Renggis), as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO.”
“For these countries, therefore, it will be necessary to continue the existing arrangements made on the basis of the existing Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Chapter 26). The 1975 Act has a provision which seeks to repeal the existing Act. It is, therefore, necessary to defer the repeal of the existing Act until all countries can make arrangements for the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders on the basis of the 1 975 Act. Sir, the Bill, therefore, seeks to amend the 1975 Act to include a provision to empower the Minister in charge to appoint different dates for the coming into operation of the different provisions of the Act. This will enable the 1 975 Act to be brought into force except for the provision which seeks to repeal the existing Act. Sir, I beg to move, Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Mr E.W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SECURITY CORPORATION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.59 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, perhaps I should explain to Members what the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act is all about. Should a Member of this House desert his wife and run off to some other country, leaving his wife and children without means, then the wife can apply to a Singapore court for an order for maintenance. But if the errant husband is not in Singapore, one cannot enforce the order. Should he run off with some other woman to another country, then the order which is obtained in Singapore can be sent to that other country for enforcement in that country's court provided, of course, we have reciprocal arrangements with that country. Honourable Members will recall that the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, 1975, was enacted in July, 1975, to introduce certain changes in the law relating to the enforcement in Singapore of maintenance orders made elsewhere, as well as the enforcement in other countries of maintenance orders made in Singapore. Before the said Act could be brought into force, we sought the views of countries. which had previously entered into existing arrangements with us for reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders, as to whether they were able to enter into new arrangements based on our new Act. Sir, in the Law Ministers' Conference in Lagos, Nigeria, in 1974, most countries agreed to pass appropriate amendments to their Reciprocal Enforcement Act so that these new arrangements could be made. But up to-date some countries have replied that they are unable to do so as their laws have not been changed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill is a corollary to the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill, 1976, which has just been read for a Third time. The Probate and Administration (Amendment) Bill seeks to increase the jurisdiction of the District Court to enable it to grant probate and letters of administration in respect of estates which do not exceed $50,000 in value. This provision will again off-load some of the work handled by the High Court. The Bill also seeks to increase the power of the Official Assignee to administer, without letters of administration, the estates of persons who have died leaving property in Singapore, the value of which does not exceed $50,000. Under the existing law, the Official Assignee may only administer the property of such persons without letters of administration if their estates do not exceed $10,000 in value. In view of the increase in the rate of Central Provident Fund contributions, most Singaporeans will be leaving estates exceeding $10,000 in value when they die. This proposal in the Bill will enable the Official Assignee to administer such estates summarily if they do not exceed $50,000 in value. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr E.W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. MAINTENANCE ORDERS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.50 p.m.”
“PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.47 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill seeks to increase the civil jurisdiction of - (a) the District Court from $5,000 to $10,000, and the Magistrates Court from $1,000 to $2,000 on actions founded on contract or tort; and (b) the District Court in relation to any action for the recovery of immovable property the annual value of which does not exceed $9,600 a year or $800 a month, as against the present annual value of $4,800 a year and $400 a month respectively. The amendments proposed above will enable many of the cases presently with the High Court to be transferred to the Subordinate Courts, and be dealt with more expeditiously, with the additional staff (one District Judge and three Magistrates) being provided for the Subordinate Courts, in the coming fiscal year. This will thus effectively off-load some of the work that has previously been done in the High Court. Besides, costs will be much less in the Subordinate Courts, and the procedure much simplified. The amendments made to sections 28 and 29 of the Subordinate Courts Act seek to increase the jurisdiction of the District Courts to enable them to grant probate or letters of administration in respect of estates which do not exceed $50,000 in value. This is in line with the exemption from estate duty granted by the Minister for Finance in April 1974 on the first $50,000 of the total value of any property left by a deceased person. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr E.W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.”
“Sir, the Hon. Member would have done better if he had directed his remarks to the man-in-charge who happens to be the Minister for National Development and Communications and the Chairman of the Public Utilities Board. But since he mentioned oil, I myself am interested tool Sir, the soil at Bedok can hold water but there is not much water to be collected. It is suitable for a storage reservoir but the catchment is small and, therefore, the quantity of water that can be tapped will not be very significant. The Bedok area, in fact, is an urban catchment area and the runoff water is very polluted, especially during dry weather. However, the Public Utilities Board is studying this problem. For the time being, the project has been deferred. I understand that the reliable yield is about 23,000 cubic metres or 5 million gallons per day. 4.15 p.m. As for boring, there have been studies to show that there may be water right down under Singapore, but it is a costly process and nobody has been able to bore that far down. Anyway, not yet but one day we will come to that. If we strike oil, let us hope that it is not in the Straits of Malacca but in the Straits of Singapore.”
“Sir, I do not understand Mandarin but this debate is gathering heat, but, I hope in good spirit. However, this is not the time nor the place to judge any one specific case. We cannot do that. I think we should do it outside, either in the Ministry or, if we cannot come to agreement, in the courts. But debating the hawker's point of view or the inspector's point of view here will get us nowhere and we cannot come to any conclusion.”
“I understand from the Hawkers Department that it is not feasible, but I think there must be cases where if valuable jewellery or property is seized then a receipt must be issued. I thank the Member for his suggestion. and assure him that this matter will be given every consideration.”
“There was no such evidence. But, as I have said, this is not the place nor is it the time for us to argue on particular cases. They are better dealt with in the Ministry. He says that the hawkers in his constituency are fed up. The licences of six hawkers in Bras Basah constituency were revoked because it was found that instead of conducting their business they had allowed unauthorised persons, including non-citizens, to conduct their business at their stalls at Malabar Street. Three of the six hawkers eventually surrendered their licences. The remaining three hawkers appealed for the return of their licences. Two ~f the appeals were granted, and the third was rejected. I think the Member for Jurong felt sore when one of his constituents, who was doing business without a licence, had some of his jades confiscated. He has appealed to me but I could not allow the appeal. The matter was taken out of my hands. Where valuable property, like jade, has been confiscated, the matter is thrashed out in court, and since the Magistrate has made an order of forfeiture the Minister cannot intervene. He has also mentioned the question of receipts. Sometimes when goods are being seized, everybody around is running hurry-scurry, and in a situation like this it is difficult to issue receipts. But he has made a good point .- when valuable property like jade is confiscated, if there is an opportunity, a receipt should be handed over immediately. If it is not given immediately, then it should be given as soon as the hawker inspector, who has seized the jade, has returned to base. But so far we have not issued receipts.”
“He will be pleased to know that tenders have been called and construction work is expected to start sometime ii April. Sewerage work has already commenced. The centre is expected to be completed in early 1977. The centre will have 271 stalls consisting of 164 market produce stalls. 35 piece and sundry goods stalls and 72 cooked food stalls. The project is estimated to cost $1.7 million and will house some of the Street hawkers in the area. Before I pass on, perhaps I should mention that, without being personal in any way, the Member for Sembawang was at one time attached to the Hawkers Department. The Member for Bras Basah has grumbled about the lack of rules and procedures for the revocation of licences. I would like to assure him that the officers of the Hawkers Department do not cancel licences without justification. They have to act w thin the framework of the existing law, departmental policies and procedures. Hawker licences may be cancelled for various reasons, such as non-payment of licence fees, which is very essential; and flouting the law continuously or subletting of stalls or pitches. Licences may also be cancelled for allowing unauthorised persons to conduct business at the stalls or pitches. The decision to cancel is only taken after careful consideration. The hawker is given an opportunity to explain why his licence should not be cancelled, and the licence is revoked only when no satisfactory reasons can be given. I think the Member is well aware that a hawker can appeal, first to the Parliamentary Secretary for the re-instatement of his licence, and ultimately to the Minister in charge. The Member for Bras Basah has mentioned one particular case where the husband was doing work for the wife who was the licence holder. That is his side of the story.”
“One of them suffered a head injury and was given four stitches at the Toa Payoh Hospital. These are some of the many incidents which have taken place when hawker inspectors try to enforce what they are responsible for. But to each and every Member here. I say that it is difficult for me to reply in Parliament to any specific allegation or any specific case. If a Member has a complaint against a hawker inspector, he can send it to the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of the Environment. And if he does not give him any satisfactory answer, try the Minister. Perhaps I should tell the Member for Sembawang that any person who sells goods in a market or public place without a licence is committing an offence. He mentioned that a summons was issued, but unfortunately he did not say what the summons was for, whether it was for obstruction or for hawking without a licence. All he said was that he had been to the Ministry to raise the matter on behalf of his constituent and the summons was withdrawn. That is a good Member of Parliament and a reasonable Ministry, and we have a satisfied constituent. As for farmers selling their produce at market places. they cannot sell without a licence and, if they do, then the other stallholders there would get angry. Either they would block the place or they would say, "it is unfair competition". The Member is well aware that when unlicensed hawkers come along, whether or not they are farmers, there is bound to be trouble. There will be trouble between hawker inspectors and hawkers, and also trouble among the hawkers themselves and sometimes we have to intercede. The Member was asking for details about Canberra Food Centre in his constituency.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, all the three Members of Parliament have made complaints against hawker inspectors, unlike some other Members who have spoken earlier in this debate that some of the hawkers are really well-off and are driving Mercedes Benzes and Jaguars. However, these three Members now refer to the poor hawkers who, they allege, have been very badly treated by the hawker inspectors of the Ministry of the Environment. I am not saying that all hawkers are rich. Neither are all of them poor. Neither are all the hawker inspectors in the Hawkers Department bad. There may be a few who have overstepped the mark. But generally, unless there is proper enforcement, the hawkers will take over - obstruct five-foot ways, roads, and also serve dirty food. There must be enforcement. Sometimes such enforcement leads to very unpleasant incidents. Last year there were 21 such incidents. Two incidents were serious when hawker inspectors were assaulted by these "poor" stallholders and hawkers. I will tell this House about some of the incidents. On 6th January, 1975 a hawker inspector was slashed with a fruit-cutting knife on the right side of the neck. He was warded in the hospital for ten days. In another incident on 20th February, 1975 an unlicensed hawker attempted to splash hot water on an inspector. He was stopped from doing so by Cisco guards. On 25th February 1975 empty bottles were thrown at our officers in a van, causing damage to the van. On 22nd March 1975 a hawker, armed with a meat chopper, charged at a party of hawker inspectors. A timely intervention by Cisco guards prevented any injury. On 11th October, 1975 three Public Health auxiliaries were assaulted by members of an unlicensed hawker's family.”
“Sir, I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Prime Minister. Sir, as for the Member's first point, the post of Head of the Anti-Pollution Unit has been filled since 1971. The incumbent is presently the Acting Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of the Environment, but his salary is paid out of the Ministry's vote. As for pollution by the Ministry itself, it is the practice now to build a bund on the side of the Serangoon River, so that as little rubbish as possible goes into the river. But I agree with the Member that when there is high tide there is some pollution in the river. The Member will be happy to know that the construction of the new incinerator at Ulu Pandan will reduce the pollution in Punggol. This incinerator is scheduled to be completed in 1979 or 1980. It will have electrostatic precipitators to minimise air pollution. As to lorries which carry rubbish. I agree that sometimes water trickles down. Most of the lorries are new ones. They are compact and no water flows out. We have about 70 old lorries which are still in use, and on rainy days when the rubbish is wet it trickles from the back and produces a terrible stench. But we are in the process of getting rid of these lorries. I do not want to blame the Minister for Finance, but with more money we can get rid of the old lorries. However, there are priorities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid the Minister cannot tell him much because he is not in charge of appointments of High Court Judges or even Judges in the Lower Courts. But the Member may well be aware that Judges of the High Court are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister, and it is incumbent on the Prime Minister to consult the Chief Justice before appointments are made. If I may say so, one must be very careful when appointing judges. They must be men of experience, ability and integrity, and have had several years of legal experience at the Bar or in the legal department of the civil service. The position in the High Court is that Mr Justice Tan Ah Tah retired in November last year. So there is one seat vacant. Mr Justice D'Cotta retired at the end of February this year but he has been re-appointed for another six months. Mr Justice Choor Singh is due to retire in July, and whether or not his employment will be extended depends on the Prime Minister after consultation with the Chief Justice. As for delays in the High Court, this is not just because there is one judge short. Cases take some months or even years, at least for civil cases, to go to trial after pleadings, interrogatories, discovery of documents and a convenient date to counsel for both sides and the litigants. There does not seem to be a shortage of judges in the District Courts or the Subordinate Courts. There again the appointments are made by the Legal Service Commission headed by the Hon, the Chief Justice. I am in no position in this House to make comments on the appointments. Beyond that, the Member may rest assured that the appointments and state of the cases in the High. Court, or even the District Courts, are in the hands of capable persons.”
“The reclamation profile will also present a continuously straight wharf frontage with the land reclaimed under Phase I, which is essential for the safe navigation and berthing of ships. Additional berths will be available for coastal ships. The reclamation, which will be undertaken by the Port of Singapore Authority as agent of the Government, is expected to take about three years to complete at an estimated cost of $32 million which will include the cost of construction of the wharf wall, Fill required for the reclamation will be obtained from the dredging of Sisters Shoal. On completion of the reclamation the reclaimed land will be alienated by the Commissioner of Lands to the Authority on suitable terms and conditions. Sir, I beg to move, Question put, and agreed to. Resolved. That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of approximately 13.6 hectares 134 acres( of the foreshore and seabed at Pasir Panjang as shown hatched pink on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 15/75", which is deposited in the Land Office. Singapore. CIVIL LIST”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, the motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. * The motion reads as follows: 'That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of approximately 13.6 hectares (34 acres) of the foreshore and seabed at Pasir Panjang as shown hatched pink on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 15/75", which is deposited in the Land Office. Singapore.' Sir, you may recall that this House previously approved the reclamation at Pasir Panjang which was carried out in three phases as shown edged orange (Phase I), green (Phase II) and purple (Phase III) respectively on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 15/75", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of Honourable Members. All these reclamations have already been completed. The land reclaimed in Phase I has been allocated to the Port of Singapore Authority for development of a warehousing complex, that in Phase II will also be allocated to the Authority for port operations and warehousing, and the land reclaimed under Phase III will be developed by Government (the Ministry of National Development) for recreational purposes. The Port of Singapore Authority now proposes to reclaim another 13.6 hectares (34 acres) of the foreshore and seabed fronting the Phase II reclaimed land as shown hatched pink on the plan to provide the necessary deep water berths for conventional ships requiring a draft of 32 feet for tying alongside the wharves for loading with a one-foot underkeel allowance.”