S Jayakumar
Singapore
“It is well and good for countries to announce various targets and emissions. But one vexing issue ultimately is: what will be the method for verifying compliance with each country's announced measures? Another vexing issue, of course, is the issue of financing.”
“I would appreciate it if she were to give me some specifics of the negative feedback. But the general feedback I have had about our judiciary, both of the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts, has been nothing but positive.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the information that I have is that there is always medical advice present when caning is administered and that if the medical opinion is that caning cannot proceed beyond a certain point, that medical opinion will be observed and the caning will not proceed.”
“Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent announcement to make immediate improvements to the public transport system (a) whether the Ministry has set a timeline for the increase in frequency of feeder bus services; and (b) whether the Ministry can immediately target such services that are currently running at…”
“SCDF will continue to work with HDB and other relevant agencies to ensure that such older buildings with one exit staircase meet the prevailing fire safety requirements when they undergo major renovation or upgrading works. CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS 3.”
“The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Teo Ser Luck) (for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Mrs Jessie Phua's and Dr Lim Wee Kiak's questions together as they both relate to the same issues.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,291 lines we hold for S Jayakumar, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 27 of 66.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, so long as he refuses to acknowledge that for the legal profession, we must ensure high quality, he is evading the issue. Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Jalan Besar GRC)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate on the Budget Statement 1994. Year in and year out, Sir, varying views and opinions are given to describe the Budget and this year is no different. Overall, the reaction has been positive and it must be so given the fact that existing taxes are maintained and no new taxes are introduced. This is made possible because of the stronger than expected economic growth over the past year resulting again in a healthy budget surplus which once again proved the Ministry of Finance has pursued sound and pragmatic fiscal policies. As for me, Sir, I would like to join the ranks of those who hailed this year's Budget Statement as a "people's Budget" having taken into account the various rebates, perks and incentives dished out to almost every sector of our society. Some quarters in the business sector perceived it as "pro-worker" or "pro-individual" and feel dissatisfied. Could this dissatisfaction be attributed to their assumption that being "pro-worker" must be contrary to business interests? I certainly hope not because if this was so, perhaps it could be due to a misinterpretation of the actual intention. In fact, the Budget is pro-business in many respects like the property tax cut of 1% (which could work out to as high as 15% savings for some businesses), tax perks for lending and borrowing of securities and extension of tax relief period for economic expansion incentives. I am confident that the majority of Singaporeans will concede that the Budget is good for both the individuals and the businessman.”
“I think the Minister for Education has emphasised, on many occasions, that no person is denied admission to the University solely because he cannot afford it. But the Member has refused to answer my question. Because if the answer to the question - he refuses to answer - is yes, I am surprised because, as a member of the legal profession, surely he must agree that it is necessary to ensure high quality for entrance to the legal profession. If that answer is yes, then whether it is 60, 70, or 80, and if there are 50 places, the best 50 will be taken in. Does he agree to the question?”
“He has not answered the question. Does he agree, or not agree, that we must ensure good quality in the legal profession? It is a simple question. An Hon. Member: Yes, or no?”
“The most important question to address here is: does the Member agree that what is essential for Singapore, and for the legal profession, is to ensure that the system is such that the legal profession gets a fair share of the best into the legal profession? Does he agree with that basic premise? Mr Ling How Doong: Mr Speaker, I have known of people who are qualified but are not even admitted to the Medical Faculty. In fact, the Government is doing all these things. So what difference does it make? It is not that all the good ones will go to one particular stream. I do not think that is the case because all along in Singapore, I know that, as a fact, admission to the various faculties does not necessarily depend on this. In fact, there is some sort of engineering going on in Singapore all this while.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I comment on what Mr Ling How Doong has said about the recent measures taken to amend the Legal Profession Act. First, I want to express my surprise that he now raises this matter several months after the Legal Profession Act was amended in November, and the main thrust of the amendments was to give effect to the Report of the Attorney-General's Committee on the Supply of Lawyers. I have looked at the Hansard here and I find that he did not even bother to attend that sitting. If it was an important issue to him where he had views, I would have thought he would have made it a point to attend the sitting and express his views. He seems to have suddenly woken up to this only several months later. Having said that, let me say that it is not sufficient to come to this House and dismiss the various amendments which were made as being unfair because Members will recall that in my speech, during the Second Reading of the Bill, I emphasised that these measures and the recommendations of the Attorney-General's Committee were founded on public interest and national interest and clear arguments were given in the Report of the Attorney-General why these measures were needed, why there has to be an optimum projected growth rate of lawyers, and why it is necessary to maintain quality. If he disagrees with it, I think it is incumbent on him to tell us which aspects of the rationale, which aspects of the arguments of the Attorney-General's Report he finds fault with. If necessary, he can move an adjournment motion so that we can have a full debate. But it is necessary for him to tell us which of the premises and arguments which led to the measures he disagrees with.”
“The Small Claims Tribunals were set up to provide a speedy and inexpensive machinery to handle small claims of $2000 or less. In 1993, a total of 24,310 claims were filed in the tribunals. The figures for 1991 and 1992 were 25,465 claims and 28,517 claims respectively. All claims filed in 1993 have been disposed of expeditiously. Time taken was: Consumer claims - 7 days. Non-consumer claims - 14 days. Tourist claims - Within the same day. Despite the substantial number of claims, the tribunals have been able to maintain a waiting time of not more than 1 week for consumer claims and 2 weeks for non-consumer claims, resulting in cutting down waiting time by more than half. A few days ago, the Chief Justice in his Keynote Address at the Subordinate Courts Third Workplan Seminar said that since these tribunals are a quick and inexpensive forum for the resolution of disputes, we should broaden their scope so that more people can make use of this alternative to the civil courts. For this reason, he has directed a working party of judicial officers to review the Small Claims Tribunals Act and, in particular, to consider extending the jurisdiction of the tribunals both in terms of the value as well as the nature of claims. My Ministry will await the recommendations of the working party before deciding whether to revise the jurisdiction of the tribunals. LOOPHOLE IN INCOME TAX STRUCTURE 2. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for Finance whether the disparity between the maximum personal income tax and corporate tax rates will create a loophole for individuals in the highest income bracket to set up a company to take advantage of the lower corporate tax rates; and if he will remedy it.”
“The intention is that it should cover any appeal which has actually been made, not just an appeal which has been heard or part heard. Does the saving provision also cover pending agreements even before the appeal is made? The intention is it does not cover pending agreements. 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. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. REGISTRATION OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (AMENDMENT) RULES”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank both speakers who have spoken. Both Dr Arthur Beng and Mr Davinder Singh have raised a point about the feature which was introduced five years ago about allowing parties for civil cases to agree beforehand that they could have their appeals to the Privy Council. Does this legislation bring about a loss of confidence on the part of investors or the shipping community? I do not think so. First, as you will have noticed from my speech, in the past five years there have been only two appeals to the Privy Council. I have not had any representations put to me or to anybody else that there is alarm or concern among the shipping or commercial community. Having said that, let me also say that obviously the feature which was introduced five years ago could not have been intended to last forever, but at some stage we would have had to do away with appeals to the Privy Council. For those in the shipping or banking community for whom it is important that the resolution of a dispute that they have under the contract be located outside Singapore, or the final decision maker on the dispute should be in England - it is always open to them still to agree and provide in the contract or other document that they can have recourse to arbitration in England. They can have a prior agreement that their dispute shall be settled by arbitration by one or more of the leading Queen's Counsels or other outstanding lawyers in England or other parts of the world. Mr Davinder Singh has asked me on the interpretation on clause 4. I should like to point out to him that the saving provision is almost identically worded as the saving provision in the Bill enacted in 1989. In fact, the wordings are almost exactly the same.”
“Turning to the provisions of the Bill, clause 2 repeals the Judicial Committee Act, thus abolishing appeals to the Privy Council. This, however, is subject to a saving provision in clause 4 which provides for the continued application of any appeal, application for leave or special leave to appeal made under the Judicial Committee Act before the commencement of the Bill and they will continue to apply. Clause 3 provides for consequential amendments to other Acts set out in the Schedule, and I may add that we will also have to repeal Article 100 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore which is an enabling provision allowing appeals to the Privy Council. That, however, will be provided for in a separate Bill which has been introduced by the Finance Minister to amend the Constitution, and it also contains certain other amendments to the Constitution. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“In 1989, I spelt out at some length in this House the reasons which compelled us to seriously question the desirability of maintaining this legal anachronism which has been a feature of our judicial system for the last 30 years since our independence in 1965. The most important reason is that our local legal, economic, social and political developments have placed Singapore on a path that in many ways is different from that being followed by the United Kingdom. This has become especially pronounced with the United Kingdom's entry into the European Community. Another reason is that continued reliance on the Privy Council would stultify local development of the law which is already over-dependent on case authority from the United Kingdom. The abolition of appeals to the Privy Council would give our local jurisprudence an opportunity to develop along indigenous lines and in a direction more attuned to local and regional realities. In this regard, Members will recall that last year we enacted the Application of English Law Act which abolished Section 5 of the Civil Law Act rendering it unnecessary for our Courts to apply the law as administered in England in the determination of a mercantile issue. With this new law, our courts will now apply only prescribed English statutes as part of Singapore law. Our local legal jurisprudence will henceforth develop on a separate and independent course with English decisions serving only as persuasive authorities for the guidance of our judges. They will not be binding precedents. Abolition of appeals to the Privy Council is a logical and necessary step consequent to the enactment of the Application of English Law Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to abolish all appeals to the Privy Council. With such abolition, Singapore will become like other Commonwealth countries in this region (except for Brunei) which have abolished all such appeals. At the opening of the new legal year this January, the Chief Justice stated that with the establishment of the single permanent Court of Appeal in Singapore, the time had come to review the remaining rights of appeal to the Privy Council. The Government has agreed with him. So does the Law Society of Singapore which has written to say that they support the proposal. Last year when I took through this House the legislation to establish our new dedicated Court of Appeal, I was asked when we would remove all appeals to the Privy Council. I then replied that the Government would review the limited rights of appeal to the Privy Council with a view to its eventual removal after giving the new Court of Appeal time to establish itself. Now that the Council of Judges have unanimously recommended further appeals to the Privy Council be done away with, the time has come for us to cut the last strands of this legal umbilical cord once and for all. Let me explain briefly why the Government agrees with the Judiciary's recommendation. Since 1989, the rights of appeal have been restricted to criminal cases attracting the death penalty where the decision of the Court of Appeal was not unanimous. For civil cases, appeals to the Privy Council lay only where parties had a prior agreement to do so. In the last four years, there has been no criminal appeal to the Privy Council. In civil cases, there have been only two civil appeals, both cases being related cases which were heard together.”
“In the last 10 years, 41 cases of incest were reported. Details on the ethnic background and age of the victims in the cases over the last 5 years are given below. (Such details for the other years are not available.). BREAKDOWN OF INCEST VICTIMS BY RACE AND AGE-GROUP FOR THE PERIOD 1989-1993 (OCT) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ YEAR 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Race CHI MAL IND TOTAL CHI MAL IND TOTAL CHI MAL IND TOTAL CHI MAL IND TOTAL CHI MAL IND TOTAL AGE-GROUP (years) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Below 15 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 15 - 19 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 20 - 24 0 1 1 0 0 0 25 - 29 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 30 and above 1 1 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1 1 1 3 2 1 0 3 1 1 3 5 3 2 1 6 3 0 1 4 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Source: Singapore Police Force. FEMALE CIVIL SERVANTS 7. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for Finance (a) if he will state the absolute number and percentage of female civil servants who are (i) single, (ii) married, (iii) divorced and (iv) widowed; (b) what would be the increase in dollar terms and as a percentage of the total payroll if female civil servants were awarded the same medical benefits as their male counterparts; and (c) what is the number of female civil servants with spouses also in the civil service.”
“Between January 1989 and October 1993, there were 43 reported cases of domestic violence where the wife is the victim of an offence of voluntarily causing hurt by Dangerous Weapons or Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt. (Statistics for the preceding period are not available.). Police view seriously all cases of domestic violence especially where grievous hurt is caused. Police will prosecute the offenders where there is sufficient evidence. Of the 43 cases I mentioned, 18 resulted in prosecution. Police were unable to prosecute in the other 25 cases for various reasons. For example, in some cases the victim refused to co-operate with Police to go for medical examination and in other cases, complainants made police reports apparently to buttress their case for divorce. As for the training of Police officers, they are trained to handle such cases in their basic training courses at the Police Academy. They are also taught counselling and communications skills and crisis intervention techniques. INCEST CASES FROM 1983 TO 1992 6. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will state (i) the number of incest cases reported from 1983 to 1992 and (ii) the ethnic background of the victims and their age range.”
“4 Rape 3.6 1.4 6.3 Outraging Modesty 3.6 3.1 3.1 Robbery 1.1 1.2 1.0 Snatch Theft 0.1 0.4 0.0 _________________________________________________________________ Source: Singapore Police Force. IMPACT OF FOREIGN PATIENTS ON SINGAPORE'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 3. Mr Chia Shi Teck asked the Minister for Health (a) how many foreign nationals sought medical treatment in Singapore from 1989 to 1993 (up to the latest convenient date); (b) what is the estimated amount they spent on consultation fees, medication and hospitalisation for the same period; (c) what will be the trend and impact of foreign patients on Singapore's health care system; and (d) whether all these external factors have been taken into account in charting our health care system.”
“(a) The breakdown of crimes committed by foreign workers in Singapore for the period 1990-1992 is appended below. Crimes committed by foreign workers account for about 3-4% of total crimes reported. Furthermore, most of the offences of murder, aggravated hurt, rioting and robbery, committed by them involved victims who were also foreigners. There has been a recent increase in crimes committed at construction sites, including theft and murder. Police believe that these crimes are committed by foreigners (not necessarily workers) who came to Singapore on social visit passes and who target construction sites for their crimes. Police is monitoring this closely. (b) As there is no discernible trend suggesting increase in crimes committed by foreign workers, Police can cope and are of the view that the situation is under control. BREAKDOWN OF CRIMES COMMITTED BY FOREIGN WORKERS FOR SELECTED OFFENCES IN SINGAPORE FOR THE PERIOD 1990 - 1993 _________________________________________________________________ OFFENCE YEAR 1990 1991 1992 _________________________________________________________________ Murder 2 4 1 Aggravated Hurt 23 11 17 Rioting 7 4 4 Rape 4 1 5 Outraging Modesty 27 24 26 Robbery 17 17 11 Snatch Theft 1 3 0 _________________________________________________________________ TOTAL NO. OF CRIMES RECORDED _________________________________________________________________ Murder 44 50 42 Aggravated Hurt 426 426 449 Rioting 199 189 168 Rape 111 74 80 Outraging Modesty 749 783 834 Robbery 1577 1404 1066 Snatch Theft 999 678 669 _________________________________________________________________ PERCENTAGE OF CRIMES COMMITTED BY FOREIGN WORKERS _________________________________________________________________ Murder 4.5 8.0 2.4 Aggravated Hurt 5.4 2.4 3.8 Rioting 3.5 2.1 2.”
“Sir, I beg to move, (1) In page 2, line 22, after "(ii), to insert "was and still"; (2) In page 2, line 27, after "(iii)", to insert "was and still"; and (3) In page 2, line 32, after "(iv)", to insert "was and still". They are purely drafting amendments. Amendments agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 31 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments, read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." -[Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes to Six o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.”
“Sir, may I have your leave to move the three amendments together as they are really drafting amendments and almost identical?”
“As I have pointed out, the legal officer, therefore, has two levels of possible disciplinary proceedings. Why did we delete the words "in his professional capacity"? There is nothing sinister about this. The reason is that under the Act the list of offences which can be the subject of an investigation includes matters which do not relate to disciplinary professional matters. For example, one is convicted of CBT in respect of monies given to you by a relative. You can be convicted of criminal breach of trust but it may not be in your capacity as a lawyer, but the law has always said that in the legal profession that is a ground for taking action. So there is an inconsistency between the deletion of those words and other provisions. It is really to harmonise. But, as I have assured Members, it cannot mean that you can bring frivolous or irrelevant matters under the guise of this newly amended provision. For example, the wife of a lawyer should not be entitled to bring a complaint on the ground that she had some matrimonial problems with her husband because that is conduct which is completely unrelated to his being an officer of the court or being an honourable member of the profession. I hope I have answered most of his points but if I have not, I hope he will remind me. 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. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -”
“Therefore, we have decided to follow the approach in the United Kingdom where for solicitors and architects, their requirements are spelt out in subsidiary legislation. That will also give us the flexibility to alter the list from time to time. So it is really to provide for flexibility. He disagrees that legal officers must be subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in addition to the fact that they may be disciplined by the Legal Service Commission. But we need to take into account two different things. One is that he is employed by the Legal Service Commission. As an employee, there may be certain misdemeanours and disciplinary offences which may or may not duplicate the matters looked at by the Chief Justice. The Legal Service Commission has the authority to fire him or otherwise take action against him as an employee. But such a person has a dual capacity in that he is also an advocate and solicitor. Now, who admitted him as an advocate and solicitor? It was the Supreme Court. As an advocate and solicitor, he is an officer of the Supreme Court. That is why it is right that if a complaint is made, which may warrant him to be struck off the rolls, the Supreme Court should do it. We have changed the position because it cannot be the Law Society. The Law Society's jurisdiction properly should be over practising lawyers who have client-solicitor relationship. Others do not have client-solicitor relationship. For example, I am a non-practising lawyer. It is right that my status as an officer of the court should be subject to somebody's jurisdiction. But I do not think it should be the Law Society because I do not practise law. But it is right that the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction over such non-practising lawyers.”
“I understand that they looked at the curriculum, they looked at the library resources, track record and, most important, they took into account that most of the returning Singapore lawyers from England traditionally come from these universities. So there is room for debate as to whether other universities should have been included. That is why they have recommended that this list should not be cast in stone and there should be periodic reviews because one of these 15 universities' standards may fall. So we must have the ability to review. On the issue of second uppers or second lowers, we can have debating points on this. But really it comes back to quality. All these recommendations have, as their cornerstone, quality of the future legal practitioners. If you are interested in quality and, as I said, we have no controls over the standards and curriculum of these 15 universities, then you narrow it down to these 15 and from within the 15, make sure that we get the best. Sure, a second upper graduate does not necessarily guarantee that he is going to be better than someone else who has got a second lower. A second lower graduate may turn out later on to be a better practitioner than a second upper graduate. But we have to make decisions in the light of the information that we have before us. He also brought up the issue of subsidiary legislation, a point also raised by Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon. Why do it by subsidiary legislation? As I have pointed out in my speech, if we are not to do this, we have a legislation which will be very cumbersome and complicated because there have to be various different cut-off dates for various different categories of persons mentioned in the report.”
“There is close coordination between the Law Faculty, the Academy of Law, and the Board of Legal Education to ensure that the legal training in Singapore is the best possible for entry into the Bar. We cannot be assured the same for those returning from the United Kingdom. Therefore, there must come a time when we cut the apron strings from the United Kingdom. I think the Committee's logical conclusion would have been to recommend a complete severance of ties. But they said that the primary source must be the NUS Law Faculty. And for the time being, allow a limited number to come from the United Kingdom. Once you decide on a limited number, then you must make a selection. And bear in mind, when you talk about foreign law graduates, law is different from other disciplines. In medicine, when we talk about appendectomy, if you have an appendicitis in the United States and a patient who has appendicitis here, we are talking of the same type of organ. But laws are different. Laws reflect certain norms, value systems, in a given society. And for the future, we must be sure that entrants to the legal profession are trained in the environment which they are familiar with and they are familiar with the laws which reflect the legal ethos and values of the country in which they are going to practise. The other point raised by Mr Low Thia Khiang is whether we can be sure that the 15 universities are the best. The report makes it very clear that they are not implying that all other universities are bad, inferior, but a choice has to be made. And they made this choice with the best possible judgment that they could come to.”
“Orators? I apologise. I thought I heard him say "waiters". I take it back. I am not sure how many vacancies are there available for public orators. Anyway, if Members read the report of the committee, there are very good reasons stated there as to why it is necessary to curb the projected rate. We are already 82 per 100,000 population and other countries like Japan, Switzerland, Hong Kong have far less and these are also commercial centres. We do not want to reach a situation in Western countries where you have a high ratio and a large number of lawyers which leads to a litigious society and also a misallocation of resources. He says "elitist". How do we justify 15 universities? He is not in favour of restriction on foreign law graduates. Here, I would like to take up the point I mentioned just now to Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon. In the early days when we did not have a Law Faculty or when our Law Faculty was developing, it was right that we had this dependence on foreign qualifications as an entry route. We even had part-time law courses, external law degrees. But we have to review this. Very few countries in the world recognise foreign law qualifications as an entry to their legal profession. The United Kingdom is moving in a different direction. Their legal philosophy is changing fast. They are now tied up with the European Economic Community. Secondly, we have no control whatsoever over their curriculum, their standards, what they teach, and they certainly do not teach any subject on Singapore law. Thirdly, in Singapore, our Law Faculty has got very high standards. Entry into the Law Faculty is very difficult and we are getting very good graduates. We have control over the standards with the external examiner.”
“I think the basic philosophy must be retained. And the basic philosophy is that for the future, short-term and longer-term, our policy must be that the entry to the legal profession must no longer be dependent on foreign qualifications acquired abroad. The mainstay ought to be the Law Faculty at the NUS. If we take that philosophy, then whether or not we have a common professional examination, we must be careful not to open the floodgates to all foreign qualifications. Mr Low Thia Khiang started off by saying that capping the number of lawyers cannot be in the interest of the public. He even talked about lawyers being allowed to work as waiters. That might have been tongue-in-cheek or he might have been serious. But when the day arrives that we have lawyers who cannot get employment and have to work as waiters ---”
“As far as his query on transitional provisions is concerned, I have looked at the transitional provisions and it is fair to say that the interpretation must be of a clean slate approach. In other words, all these amendments will apply only to new cases which have been commenced or referred to an Inquiry Committee after the commencement of this Act. I hope these clarifications are helpful to Mr Davinder Singh. I thank Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon for his support. He is right that on the capping of lawyers, you can have different approaches. And I agree with his observation that the fact that 15 universities in the United Kingdom have been selected is not necessarily an adverse reflection on anyone who comes from another university. He talked about the ceiling of 50 for the diploma course and whether there can be flexibility. I will discuss this with the Dean of the Law Faculty and the Chairman of the practical course. If there is flexibility, we must ensure that the flexibility is not implemented to such an extent that it will upset the projected growth rate. We cannot let it go totally askew, so to speak. But I will bear in mind his points and examine them with the Dean when they get to the implementation of the Diploma course. Common professional examination. I would disagree with Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon. When I said common professional examination, what we have in mind is to avoid a situation now where you have the practical course separately organised and the Diploma course proposed for returned United Kingdom law graduates and whether we can craft a new course which will probably combine the elements and objects of these two courses into one. I think what he hopes is that once we do that, then we do not have any restriction.”
“In practice, I understand the court usually requires the application papers to be served on the defendant and allows him to be heard. He also asked about the non-inclusion of the provision on convictions. Again, I would like to point out that for non-practising lawyers and legal officers, the approach is taken to have a simpler procedure and criterion of conduct unbefitting the legal officer or non-practising lawyer. The reason for the non-inclusion of the provision on conviction is that it is really not relevant under this new general approach, since a criminal conviction per se is not a ground for disciplinary action, although the circumstances and the acts which give rise to the criminal action can be a matter to be considered by the Chief Justice or the Attorney-General. I would also like to remind Mr Davinder Singh another reason why we have to make a distinction between practising advocates and solicitors and this other category. For practising advocates and solicitors, the procedures which begin from the Inquiry Committee, DC and show cause, almost invariably will affect his right to practise. Whereas for the legal officer, whatever is the result of the actions which may result from the Disciplinary Committee for legal officer and non-practising lawyer, as to whether he is to be retained in the service, whether he is to be demoted or fired or whatever in respect of his career, that has to be the subject of a separate independent proceeding to be brought - Mr Low Thia Khiang referred to it - by the Legal Service Commission. Therefore, because of these differences, the approach has been crafted differently.”
“Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. Can I first take Mr Davinder Singh's comments? I think most of his comments turned on the new provisions for legal officers and non-practising lawyers. I wish to assure him that it is not the intention to have double standards. As for the way the provisions have been crafted, there is a reason for this. The reason is that the Act particularises the various types of misconduct in detail for advocates and solicitors who are practising. Whereas for the legal officers and non-practising lawyers, there is a general provision concerning guilty of misconduct unbefitting a member of the honourable profession or unbefitting an officer of the Supreme Court. The second ground is the various acts of bankruptcy. There is a good reason for this because we must remember that there are far more advocates and solicitors than legal officers and non-practising lawyers. There are more than 2,000. Next, bear in mind that they have client-solicitor relationship. They are practising lawyers. Non-practising lawyers and legal officers do not have client-solicitor relationships. Thirdly, the number of complaints on practising lawyers is far more than for the special category of legal officers and non-practising lawyers. That is the reason why the procedure crafted for non-practising lawyers and legal officers is simpler. That does not mean that their interests or the safeguards will be lost sight of. For example, he mentioned the ex parte procedure. I think the main point, as I said, is that the number of complaints will be smaller and I do not think he will be at a disadvantage. I think the Chief Justice can be expected not to grant leave under this provision if the complaint is frivolous.”
“Clause 7 amends section 26 to enable the Attorney-General to issue a restricted practising certificate to an in-house lawyer employed by the Law Society so as to permit such in-house lawyer of the Law Society to appear in Court on behalf of the Society which will save legal costs for the Society. Clause 8 amends section 34A to remove any doubts that sections 32 and 33 prohibiting unauthorised persons from practising Singapore law do not apply to a foreign lawyer in arbitration proceedings where the applicable law is Singapore law, who is also allowed to appear jointly with a legal officer in such proceedings, thereby extending the same privilege presently enjoyed by a local practising advocate and solicitor in such arbitration proceedings. Clause 9 amends section 66 to empower the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General to require the Council to disclose any matter or information relating to any complaint of misconduct or disciplinary action against any lawyer. This is necessary because I am told that the present provision concerning confidentiality of proceedings causes an obstacle for the Law Society to disclose such information. These provisions and the others relating to the Law Society are aimed at ensuring that the legal profession will be distinguished by honest and competent practitioners of the highest standards who will be able to meet the increasing expectations of the general public and the business community. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The complainant will be notified of the outcome at the conclusion of the proceedings. The restriction in subsection 85(1) and 85(2) is that complaints must be "in his professional capacity". The words "in his professional capacity" have been removed because it is clear from section 83 that the Act also envisages complaints about other serious misconduct on the part of the advocate and solicitor which brings into disrepute the profession. The removal of these words does not mean that frivolous complaints should be entertained. The provision must be read in the context of the instances of misconduct enumerated in section 83(2) or it must be "misconduct unbefitting the advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession". Clause 16 improves the function of the Inquiry Committee, while clause 17 improves the function and increases the powers of the Council after it receives the report of the Inquiry Committee. The remaining clauses also relate to the function of the Law Society and the Council in relation to appointing of Disciplinary Committee to hear complaints against practising lawyers. For example, if the Disciplinary Committee (DC) recommends against a formal investigation and only recommends a reprimand, the Council, if it disagrees, can apply to the High Court in a show cause action. There are several miscellaneous amendments, and perhaps I should mention the following: Section 14 is amended by increasing the pupillage of a legal officer from six months to three years so as to retain good officers in the Service. In addition, a legal officer of the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) is allowed to act as a pupil master to his other legal officers to provide an incentive for fresh law graduates to join IRAS.”
“There will be a special procedure for disciplinary action against such persons involving a show cause application to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice may grant leave for the appointment of a Disciplinary Committee to look into the complaint. Only when a prima facie case of misconduct is established, would the case be referred to a court of three judges who are empowered to impose certain punishment against the errant legal officer or non-practising lawyer, for example, striking off the rolls, prohibiting him from applying for a practising certificate for up to five years, or censuring him or ordering a penalty of up to $5,000. The other amendments relating to the Law Society which I should highlight are the following: Clause 14 amends section 83 of the Act to increase the power of the court to suspend a lawyer found guilty of misconduct from the present two years to five years. At the same time, the amendment also deletes an existing clause which has created problems by requiring our courts to imagine the equivalent position in England in respect of a barrister or solicitor there. Instead, there is a new provision whereby the court may discipline a lawyer if he has been guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the court or as a member of an honourable profession. Next, clauses 15 to 26 and 29. These clauses deal with disciplinary proceedings against practising lawyers to further improve the procedures and also to increase the powers of the Law Society. For example, clause 15 amends section 85 to enable the Law Society Council, with the leave of the court, to inquire first into complaints against practising lawyers which are more serious in nature and defer the inquiry into other complaints.”
“To avoid a plethora of complicated provisions and many details in the Act itself, including various deadlines, the detailed provisions implementing the recommendations on qualifications, education and training will be made by subsidiary legislation. It would also give us the flexibility should a need arise in the future to modify and review any of these recommendations. Sir, in the longer term, the Government's intention is to work towards introducing a common competitive examination for all law graduates seeking to practise regardless of where they graduate from. Such a scheme can be run by the Board of Legal Education. Let me now turn to the other major amendments relating to disciplinary proceedings against lawyers and legal officers. Clause 13 provides for a new section 82A setting out a new procedure for disciplining of legal officers (meaning members of the Legal Service) and non-practising lawyers. The Law Society henceforth will have no jurisdiction over such persons. This amendment results from a recent case involving a senior legal officer in the Service where the Court of Appeal ruled that the Law Society could take disciplinary proceedings under Part VII of the Act against such an officer if he had been admitted to the Bar. Sir, that decision created an anomalous situation in that legal officers who are admitted to the Bar and non-practising lawyers are subject to the disciplinary control of the Law Society while those officers who are not admitted are not. To correct this, the Bill provides that both legal officers and non-practising lawyers will be subject to the direct disciplinary control of the Court and not of the Law Society, which means that the Law Society's control is with respect to those who are practising advocates and solicitors.”
“This scheme will allow exceptional law graduates from the non-scheduled United Kingdom Universities, holders of external law degrees or law graduates from the existing gazetted Commonwealth Universities Scheme and the Hong Kong Practitioners Scheme to apply for admission to the Bar. Provision for the scheme is made in clause 3 in re-enacting section 7 of the Act. Finally, the so-called gazetted Commonwealth Universities Scheme and the Hong Kong Practitioners Scheme are to be abolished. Sir, with respect to the United Kingdom law graduates from the 15 scheduled universities, provision will be made for them to attend a course in Singapore at the NUS Law Faculty and to obtain the Diploma in Singapore Law. It will equip them with basic knowledge of Singapore law. They will no longer need to be called as Barristers or qualify as solicitors in England. Entry to the Diploma course will be based on the merits of each applicant and the number of places available. The intake of the Diploma course will be limited to 50 a year, subject to review. Current students in the United Kingdom Universities will not be required to take the course. However, between 1994 and 1996, such students will be given the option of taking the course in lieu of qualifying as a Barrister or Solicitor of England. Sir, the recommendations of the Committee are not retrospective and will not affect adversely those students, including national servicemen, who have already been accepted for a course of legal studies in any university before the release of the Report and its acceptance by the Government.”
“Clauses 2, 3 and 5 of the Bill give effect to the recommendations of the Committee by amending sections 2, 7 and 16 of the Legal Profession Act to enable the implementation of the Committee's recommendations which have been accepted. Section 2 has been amended to redefine the term "qualified person", that is, persons who are qualified for admission to the Singapore Bar. The following broad categories of persons seeking admission will be affected: Firstly, graduates from the Law Faculty, National University of Singapore. They will continue to be the primary source for practising lawyers in Singapore. In order to qualify for practice, NUS law graduates must obtain at least a second-class Honours degree. Secondly, United Kingdom law graduates. In order to control this source of qualified lawyers for entry into practice, only law graduates from a list of 15 scheduled universities can qualify for practice. The list of such universities is not intended to be exhaustive and will be subject to periodic review. Such law graduates must also attain at least an Upper second-class Honours degree and obtain the Diploma in Singapore Law to qualify for admission to the Bar. Thirdly, external law degree graduates. Holders of such external law degrees will no longer be recognised for purposes of admission to practise at the Bar from 1996. However, for those who have been accepted for their external courses before May 1993, a concession has been granted if they graduate by 1996. Fourthly, a special scheme for exceptional graduates. It was also recognised that in order to enhance the quality of legal services in Singapore, exceptional law graduates from any University in the Commonwealth or elsewhere should not be denied entry to the Bar.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill has several objectives. Firstly, it enables the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee for the Supply of Lawyers, chaired by the Attorney-General, which were accepted by the Government in April this year. Secondly, it also makes amendments on provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the discipline and conduct of lawyers and legal officers and makes provisions for other miscellaneous matters. Some of these amendments were made at the request of the Law Society. Let me deal first with the amendments relating to the recommendations of the Committee chaired by the Attorney-General. The Committee was tasked to consider the supply of lawyers for Singapore in the short-to-medium term and to recommend measures to achieve this, having regard also to the need to enhance the quality of future legal services. The number of lawyers had grown sharply in the last decade from 809 practising lawyers in 1980 to 2,402 by the end of October 1993. The ratio of 77 lawyers per 100,000 population identified by the Committee was a ratio higher than those in Japan, Hong Kong and Switzerland. In fact, Sir, the ratio mentioned by the Committee (77 lawyers per 100,000) has in fact been altered. It is now 82 per 100,000. The Government's concern with the growing number of lawyers was that if left unchecked, it could lead to a misallocation of valuable manpower resources and result in the creation of an over-litigious society with a consequential lowering of standards in practice.”
“With these additional powers, the Civil Defence will have the means, working together with these other parties, to curb and prevent fire hazard situations which endanger public safety. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Fines for offences will be increased to deter non-compliance and the fines will be comparable to those under the Building Control Act. For more effective enforcement against offenders, the Bill will provide for simpler prosecution procedures and for the confiscation of stocks and equipment. There are also provisions to enable the Commissioner of Civil Defence, with the approval of the Minister, to farm out specific functions of the Fire Safety Bureau to qualified persons such as architects and engineers registered with the Board of Architects or the Professional Engineers Board. Initially, only inspections of buildings for the purposes of issuing fire safety certificates will be farmed out to qualified persons. More functions may be farmed out in future if feasible and if there is a need. In conclusion, Sir, may I reiterate the main concern behind this Bill in these simple terms. If we want to avoid a large-scale high-rise fire, then we must ensure that small fires are stopped at their incipient stage. Better still, prevent any fire from breaking out at all. This calls for increased vigilance and effectiveness in fire prevention, fire detection and fire fighting. We can succeed in this only through the concerted efforts of everyone concerned, whether it be the Civil Defence and its Fire Safety Bureau, the professionals for inspecting the plans, the building owners or the general public who inhabit, reside or work in the building. These new provisions seek to provide the Fire Safety Bureau and the Civil Defence with the necessary powers for more effective enforcement of these fire safety standards.”
“In some cases, the staff and occupants are ignorant of evacuation procedures. Thus, if there is a real fire situation, the resulting confusion and inability of these equipment to work will easily lead to the loss of many lives. Therefore, building owners and managements can and should be required to do more for fire safety. For these purposes, clauses 21 to 23 of Part III of the Bill require the building owner or occupier, ie, the building management, of the designated larger, high-rise commercial buildings to: (a) formulate fire emergency plans and conduct regular fire drills to ensure that occupants are familiar with all the escape routes and can be evacuated in a speedy and orderly manner in the event of a fire; and (b) appoint qualified Fire Safety Managers to assist the building owner or occupier in ensuring that fire safety systems in the building are well maintained and fire emergency plans are properly formulated and exercised. The buildings that will be affected by these provisions are hotels, places of entertainment and public resort, offices and hospitals where there is a large number of visitors and occupants. Similar requirements are found in the fire safety laws of many countries such as Japan, Canada and the United States. If I may touch on the other provisions, the prior approval of the Commissioner of Civil Defence is required for any works in a building which involve the installation of fire protection and fire-detection systems or the use of combustible materials which affect the means of escape. Appeals against the decision can be made to the Minister who may seek advice from an Appeals Advisory Board. The penalties under the existing Petroleum Act have not been revised for more than 30 years.”
“(c) Where the notice to abate a fire hazard is not complied with and where there is immediate or substantial threat to life or property, for example, in an emergency, the Commissioner can take all necessary steps to abate the fire hazard. This includes removing or seizing property that constitutes a fire hazard. He can also order the owner to close the premises for up to 72 hours if there is no other way to ensure the safety of the people in the premises; and apply to the Court to extend the closure of the premises for such period as is necessary to enable steps to be taken to abate the fire hazard. (d) In all other non-emergency cases where there is non-compliance with his notice or where he is of the view that the fire hazard is likely to recur, the Commissioner has to apply to a Court for a fire hazard order requiring the owner to abate the hazard, prohibiting him from using the premises in any manner that may result in fire hazards. Next, I turn to the provisions concerning the role of the building managements in Part III of the Bill. We all know that in Singapore we have a very large number of high-rise complexes which are frequented daily by a large number of persons. These buildings may be designed with adequate means of escape and equipped with sophisticated fire-fighting and fire-detection systems. But such measures are only effective if escape routes are kept free of obstruction, if occupants know what to do in the event of a fire, and if the fire safety equipment are properly maintained. But the trouble is that the fire safety systems in some buildings are not well maintained, for example, fire doors have been wedged open, fire extinguishers and hose reels found not serviceable and valves to rising mains damaged and so on.”
“Restaurants, discotheques and departmental stores frequently ignore the dangers they cause by blocking corridors with their merchandise or by locking their emergency exits. The managements choose to lock their emergency exits sometimes, according to them, to guard against theft, unauthorised entry, shoplifting or perhaps prevent people from leaving without paying their bills. Another problem is overcrowding which frequently occurs in entertainment outlets like discotheques. In many of these outlets the number of persons present far exceeds the permitted capacity. All these are very dangerous and irresponsible acts. Members must have read of other instances where a lot of people have died in entertainment outlets when fires have broken out. In establishments where such problems exist, the Civil Defence Fire Safety Bureau does carry out enforcement measures, but unfortunately with very little success, because the law presently is inadequate, both in terms of deterrent penalties and the requisite powers. Consequently, such outlets have flagrantly disregarded the safety of their patrons in order to maximise profits. The Fire Safety Bureau has been grappling with these problems for many years, but until and unless we change the law, we will never be able to resolve the problems. Clauses 13 to 16 of the Bill give the Commissioner of Civil Defence Force the following powers to deal with fire hazard in any premises: (a) Requiring the owner of any premises to abate the fire hazard found therein within a specific period. (b) Initiating steps to abate it where the person responsible for the fire hazard cannot be found.”
“We have a very high concentration of high-rise buildings - hotels, shopping complexes and offices. Many of them house hundreds if not thousands of persons at different times of the day. For example, the buildings in Shenton Way during the weekdays and in Orchard Road during the weekends are packed with people at all times. While we have been spared the wrenching agony of a major fire disaster, there should be no mistake: we become very vulnerable if we are not vigilant. Our fire safety legislation must not only prescribe minimum safety standards but also ensure that these are implemented, complied with and effectively enforced. May I make another point? While the Government can legislate strict building and fire safety codes and enforce them, the prevention of a towering inferno situation in Singapore actually calls for active cooperation of all parties concerned - building owners, building management, Government and everyone who resides in these buildings or who works in them. May I now turn to the provisions of the Bill which is modelled largely after the Building Control Act? The new provisions of the Bill are based on local as well as foreign legislation which are modified to suit our own circumstances. References to the local and foreign laws on which the Bill is based may be found in the comparative table set out at the end of the Bill. First, I will deal with the powers for abatement of fire hazards in Part II of the Bill. These are new provisions which give powers to the Commissioner of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) to deal with fire hazards. Fire hazards can exist in many forms, the most common being obstruction of escape routes and overcrowding. In fact, we are very concerned over the problem of obstruction of escape routes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill consolidates into one law fire safety provisions in various other legislation such as the Fire Service Act, the Building Control Act and the Petroleum Act. At the same time, it also introduces new provisions for more effective enforcement of fire safety standards. Before I go into the provisions, may I make a few general remarks as to why the Government attaches importance to the enforcement of fire safety standards? Sir, in many countries, fires in urban areas have caused disasters resulting in the loss of many lives and severe damage to properties. We read about such disasters regularly in the media. In January this year, a fire in a Taipei restaurant killed 33 people and injured 21 others, which was believed to be Taiwan's highest death toll in a single fire. What was the cause? Apparently it was the locking of emergency exits. In May this year, a fire in a factory in Thailand, believed to be the world's worst factory fire in history, claimed 210 lives. It was reported that this building had no proper emergency exits and that the alarm system failed to activate, resulting in the workers in the building not being warned of the fire outbreak. Perhaps these disasters could have been prevented or the terrible consequences reduced if fire preventive measures had been taken. Such illustrations underline my Ministry's concerns and drive home the need to constantly review fire safety standards and the powers available to the authorities to deal with fire hazards to protect lives and property. The need for effective fire safety legislation, I would say, is much more acute for us in Singapore where our urban areas are among the most densely populated in the world.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to touch on the specific point raised by Mr Zulkifli, as I have mentioned in my Second Reading speech, to some extent, we have reverted to the wording in the pre-1989 position where the wording was also similar for the purpose of trafficking. In 1989, we changed it to overcome some problems in one or two cases. The difference between this present drafting and the pre-1989 drafting is that although there was a presumption in the 1973 legislation up to 1989, at that time, apart from the presumption, there was no substantive offence written into the law of possession for the purpose of trafficking. Now, we have, in a sense, tried to plug that loophole by not only having the presumption clause, but also having created a substantive offence of possession for the purpose of trafficking. I would like to be able to say, and to assure the House, that there will be no further amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act. But although we have sat down with the draftsman and we believe that we have overcome the problems, we must get the law in tandem with the evolution of case law. From time to time, it is unavoidable that where we find that case law develops in a manner which runs counter to the intention of Parliament, we may need to fine-tune the legislation, but I hope that it will not be necessary for a long time to come. 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. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. PROBATION OF OFFENDERS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.20 pm”
“In concluding, Sir, these amendments will clarify both the intention of Parliament with respect to the matters I have mentioned and enable the courts to give full effect to Parliament's intention. I wish to emphasize that the amendments will not have retrospective effect and will not affect any cases pending trial in the Courts. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“As the amount of cannabis in such a mixture does not usually fall below 50%, it is proposed that for the purpose of capital offences, trafficking in a cannabis mixture should be in amounts of more than 1,000 grammes (as compared to more than 500 grammes in the case of cannabis alone). This will give an allowance of 500 grammes for any non-cannabis material in the mixture. For this purpose, clause 6(c) of the Bill amends the Second Schedule to provide for capital punishment for trafficking in more than 1,000 grammes of cannabis mixture. To be consistent with the penalties provided for other types of drugs, the same clause also provides that trafficking in between 660 grammes and 1,000 grammes of cannabis mixture will attract a penalty of between 20 and 30 years of imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. Consequently, clause 2(a) of the Bill seeks to introduce a new definition of "cannabis mixture" as follows: "`Cannabis mixture' means any mixture of vegetable matter containing tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabinol in any quantity." As explained earlier, tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabinol are the two main alkaloids distinguishing cannabis from other hallucinogenic drugs. Detection of these two substances by the DSS chemist is sufficient scientific proof that the substance is cannabis mixture. Finally, cannabis resin. Because of the reasons I have stated concerning the psycho-active ingredients in the cannabis plant being tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabinol, we are therefore adopting the same scientific approach. Clause 2(a) of the Bill amends the definition of cannabis resin accordingly.”
“Next, a microscopic examination is carried out to detect the presence of resin, cystolithic trichomes and non-cystolithic trichomes which are unique to cannabis. Lastly, chemical tests are carried out to detect the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabinol. These are the two main alkaloids, I am told, which distinguish cannabis from other hallucinogenic drugs. We have been informed by DSS that they are also the psycho-active ingredients in the plant which causes hallucination. These alkaloids can be found in other parts of the plant (except the roots) which do not contain resin. In view of this and on the advice of the DSS, my Ministry proposes to amend the definition of cannabis to remove the misconception that cannabis is a controlled drug only if resin is present in that part of the plant. Clause 2(a) of the Bill seeks to amend the definition of "cannabis" as follows: "`Cannabis' means any plant of the genus Cannabis, or any part of such plant, by whatever name it is called." It is not necessary to provide for tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabinol to be included in the definition because, according to DSS, the plant material cannot be considered as being of the "genus cannabis" without their presence. Next, cannabis mixture. The Central Narcotics Bureau has detected some cases in which cannabis was trafficked in mixed form, ie, the plant is broken up and mixed with other vegetable matter such as tobacco. Currently, this does not attract the death penalty. To deter traffickers from trafficking in large amounts of cannabis in this form, a new capital offence will be created for this type of drug.”
“According to the experts in the DSS, this is a more scientific way of proving opium and is a universal method adopted by chemists in other countries. Clause 2(b) of the Bill therefore seeks to amend the definition of "opium" to read as follows: ''opium' means any substance containing, in any quantity, morphine and one or more of the following, namely codeine, narcotine, papaverine or thebaine, but does not include poppy straw which is not mixed in any such substance.' Proof that a substance is opium as defined will henceforth be based on a scientific basis. This new definition will also do away with the need to define opium to include raw, prepared or medicinal opium in the First Schedule to the Act. However, it is necessary to exclude "poppy straw" from the definition as trafficking in poppy straw (which also contains small amounts of morphine and any one of the four main alkaloids) in whatever quantity is not a capital offence under existing laws. For the purpose of capital offences involving opium, the existing weight of 1,200 grammes of opium (as newly defined) will be retained but it will be qualified by a new condition that the amount of morphine found therein should be more than 30 grammes. This new condition is consistent with the existing capital offences for other controlled drugs containing morphine under the Second Schedule. Next, cannabis. Cannabis is currently defined under the Act to mean "any part of any plant of the genus Cannabis from which the resin has not been extracted, by whatever name it may be designated". In practice, the DSS relies on three types of tests to prove that the substance seized is cannabis as defined. First, there is a visual examination to establish the physical appearance and characteristic odour of cannabis.”
“Correspondingly, clause 4 seeks to amend section 17 to provide that where a person is proved to be in possession of a controlled drug in excess of the quantity specified under the section, he is presumed to be in possession of the drug for the purpose of trafficking. The presumption is rebuttable by the accused showing that his possession of the drug was not for the purpose of trafficking but for some other purpose, eg, for his own consumption. To some extent, we are reverting to the wording in the Act before our 1989 amendment. Sir, the other provisions of the Act deal with new definitions of controlled drugs. I must ask the Members' indulgence to bear with me as I take them through these provisions because they are quite technical in nature. Sir, we have taken the opportunity in this Bill to revise the definitions of some of the controlled drugs in the Act to put them on a more practical and scientific basis, especially opium and cannabis resin. These new definitions were arrived at after consultations with the Attorney-General and the experts in the Department of Scientific Services (DSS). First, opium. The current definition of opium only refers to its physical attributes, namely, that of a "coagulated juice obtained from any plant from which morphine may be produced." In practice, besides physical examination of the substance suspected to be opium, the chemists in the Department of Scientific Services also conduct a chemical test on the substance to test for the presence of morphine and any one of four other main alkaloids, namely, narcotine, codeine, thebaine and papaverine. As these alkaloids are only present in opium and not in any other natural product, the presence of these alkaloids will confirm that the substance is opium.”
“To further explain, if the prosecution is able to produce evidence of how he had intended to traffic in that controlled drug, then there will not be a need for the prosecution to invoke the presumption at all. Furthermore, such a ruling is impractical in such cases, because in those cases the only evidence that the prosecution can prove is the act of possession by the accused of a controlled drug in excess of the quantity specified by section 17. It is therefore impossible for the prosecution to specify the manner in which the accused had intended to traffic the drugs in his possession. We will have to read the mind of the accused. For the prosecution in these circumstances to specify the intended mode of trafficking in the charge will be most arbitrary. The Bill, therefore, gives effect to Parliament's intention in enacting the presumption in section 17 which has always been that when a person has been proved to be in possession of a controlled drug beyond a certain amount, he is presumed to possess the drug for the purpose of trafficking and should be dealt with as if he has committed the offence of trafficking in that drug. Once the presumption is invoked, there is no need to show the overt act of trafficking which he had intended to do. Consequently, there is also no need for the prosecution to specify the particulars of his intended act of trafficking in the charge. To remove the uncertainty and practical difficulties caused by the case of Lee in applying the presumption, clause 3 of the Bill seeks to insert a new subsection (2) to section 5 of the Act to provide that a person who is in possession of a controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking commits the offence of trafficking in that drug.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the main aim of this Bill is to remove the practical difficulties in applying the existing presumption in section 17 of the Act arising from a recent Court of Criminal Appeal decision known as Lee Ngin Kiat v Public Prosecutor. If I may explain, section 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act states that where a person is proved to have had in his possession more than a stipulated quantity of any of the controlled drug specified therein, he is presumed, until the contrary is proved, to traffic in that controlled drug. In Lee v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Criminal Appeal held that where the prosecution seeks to rely on such a presumption clause to charge a person for trafficking in a controlled drug, to enable the accused to rebut the presumption, the prosecution must state in the charge the exact manner in which the accused had intended to traffic, ie, whether he had intended to sell, give, administer, transport, send, deliver or distribute that controlled drug without lawful authority or offer to do any one of these acts. Sir, section 17 was introduced by Parliament to deal with the situation where a person was caught in possession of a certain quantity of a controlled drug which is clearly meant to be used for trafficking. But as he was arrested before he could have the opportunity to carry out his intended act of trafficking, there is no other evidence to show that he had intended to traffic in that controlled drug. Therefore, while we respect the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision in that specific case, such a ruling is inconsistent with the intention of Parliament in enacting section 17.”
“" And that will make it clear whether he has authority to stay in Singapore, whether that authority has expired, and so on and so forth. I thank him for his concern in any case. I will impress upon Immigration the point raised by Dr Arthur Beng. 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. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ECONOMIC EXPANSION INCENTIVES (RELIEF FROM INCOME TAX)(AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I need to address only the point that Dr Arthur Beng made about the new amendment in respect of harbouring illegal immigrants. Let me assure him that the fear that he has is not one that we need be troubled by very much because, firstly, that is not the problem that Immigration has. The problem that Immigration has is really with those who are employed illegally by employers who in many cases are also the ones who give them food and shelter. Secondly, if you look at the definition of the word "harbouring" in the Immigration Act, it means "to give food or shelter and includes acts of assisting a person in any way to evade apprehension". Therefore, Immigration and the Attorney-General's Chambers will really charge a person for the offence of harbouring only if there is some intentional act of providing food and shelter, in other words, with the knowledge that the recipient is an immigration offender, although there is a presumption clause to aid the prosecution. The third point I want to make is that this particular amendment before us today, new subsections (9) and (10) to section 57, only applies where the accused person raises the defence that he had seen a work permit or pass. Why do we craft this amendment in this way? Because we have several cases where the prosecution lost in the courts where the employer, before the Chief Justice's decision, was successfully able to say in answer to the charge of illegal employment that his worker produced a document which was a work permit. But later on, it turned out that the work permit was forged. The Immigration's position is that that is not enough for an employer to discharge his onus. All he needs to do is to ask of the potential employee, "Let me have a look at the passport.”