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 28 of 66.
“In some cases where we have caught overstayers or illegal workers and we want to repatriate them, they have brought legal action or threatened to do so claiming they have a right to stay on for various reasons. We cannot allow this. In other countries like the United Kingdom, the Courts there have developed the doctrine of legitimate expectations of aliens and have deployed this doctrine to overturn some of the decisions of the Executive concerning aliens. It is our intention that this should not happen in Singapore. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Currently, we can either allow the PR to retain his status without any conditions or we must revoke the PR status of a PR who has been deemed to be a prohibited immigrant and expel him. Although, as I said, the number of such PRs who commit offences or engage in undesirable activities is small, the Government's hands should not be tied. In some cases, it may be too harsh to revoke the PR status of a PR, especiall if he has family roots and ties here. The amendment in clause 5 will empower the Controller of Immigration to warn them and impose certain additional conditions on such PRs so that they need not be expelled if there is no need to. If these PRs breach the new conditions, their PR status can be revoked. Finally, provisions concerning judicial review. Sir, the grant of PR or immigration facilities to a foreigner are essentially matters within the purview of the Government. Those decisions are based on immigration policies based on national interest. Clause 15 of the Bill inserts a new section 39A to clarify that the Courts cannot substitute their decisions for the Executive's decisions in matters relating to immigration unless it is on ground of non-compliance with any procedural requirements. The intention of this amendment is that the merits of the immigration decision, that is, whether it is right or wrong, cannot be reviewed. This is to avoid a situation where the Courts can frustrate Government's decision to expel aliens under the Act or other immigration decisions concerning aliens. Illegal entry and overstaying are problems which affect many countries. Singapore is also faced with this problem. But we must have full powers to deal with such offenders and when they are apprehended, to prosecute them and expel them after they have served their punishment.”
“The proposed section 57(9) and (10) seek to require a person charged with employing or harbouring an illegal immigrant or overstayer to prove that he had exercised due diligence by checking the passport or travel document of the illegal immigrant or overstayer and that after checking the passport or travel document, he has reasonable grounds to believe that the illegal immigrant or overstayer was in possession of a valid immigration pass or permit if his defence is that the illegal immigrant or overstayer had such a pass or permit. Sir, we will always have foreigners coming here illegally to work so long as there are unscrupulous employers who believe that there are loopholes in the law in their favour. In fact, the Controller of Immigration has informed me that the problem of illegal immigrants and overstayers working illegally is resurfacing. A strong signal must be sent to these unscrupulous employers. The amendment will remove the inherent difficulty in prosecuting employers of illegal immigrants and overstayers. Next, provisions which empower the Controller to deal with certain permanent residents. Sir, the Act currently does not give the Government adequate powers to deal with permanent residents (PRs) who, for example, have been convicted of offences in that it does not empower the Controller to impose additional conditions on the entry permits of such PRs. The vast majority of PRs are of course law-abiding and, in fact, only a handful of PRs are convicted of offences each year. But these amendments are necessary to provide Government with wider latitude in dealing with PRs who have come to adverse notice.”
“In several cases, when an employer was charged with such an offence, he was able to get an acquittal by simply arguing that he was shown a copy of a work permit by the foreign worker, even though it turned out that the work permit was forged. In February this year, the Chief Justice in a High Court case of Naranjan Singh vs. Public Prosecutor, on appeal from the magistrate court, ruled that section 57(1)(e), read with section 57(8) of the Act, shifts to the offender the burden of proving that they did not know that the workers they employed were illegal immigrants. The Chief Justice said in his judgement that "to allow an employer to evade the section by shutting his eyes to the immigration or employment status of his foreign employee, would make proper control and enforcement impossible. It cannot be placing too onerous a duty upon employers in Singapore to require them to screen their foreign workers before employing them to ensure compliance with immigration policy and the law." As this is only a High Court decision, it is only binding on the lower courts. We therefore propose to amend the Immigration Act to provide expressly for this approach. This is the purport of clause 21(e) which adds new subsections (9) and (10) to section 57. For consistency, the new law would also apply to harbourers of illegal immigrants and overstayers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, let me deal with the major provisions of the Bill. First, powers to deal with prohibited immigrants. Sir, clause 13 empowers the Controller of Immigration to compel an aircraft or vessel (or another aircraft or vessel of the same company) to take on board a prohibited immigrant which that aircraft or vessel had brought to Singapore. The powers include preventing an aircraft or vessel from leaving Singapore if its captain fails to comply. Sir, why do we need these powers? It is because we have actually had instances where foreign airlines have brought passengers into Singapore en route to another country and having failed to proceed onwards, they had tried to dump them in Singapore. The current penalties for such contravention will be enhanced to a fine of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both. The amendment to section 31 enables the Controller to remove a prohibited immigrant to any port or place designated by the Controller. With these amendments, we will be able to remove the prohibited immigrants more quickly and effectively. Next, provisions requiring employers/harbourers of an illegal immigrant to screen the immigration status of such person. Sir, until a recent decision of the Chief Justice in February 1993, we have experienced considerable problems in prosecuting employers of illegal immigrants and overstayers. Under section 57(1)(e) of the Immigration Act, a person commits an offence if he employs an illegal immigrant or overstayer.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as you know, I have on the Order Paper the Second Reading of four Bills standing in my name. But I would like to take the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill at a later time, that is, after the conclusion of the debate on the motion on Affordable Health Care. Therefore, Sir, I beg to move, That item 5 on the Order Paper today be taken after item 7. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That item 5 on the Order Paper today be taken after item 7. IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Molest cases have registered an upward trend from 1987 even before the introduction of R(A) films in 1991. Police attributes this partly to the increased preparedness of victims to make Police reports in the context of increased awareness of their rights and easy accessibility to Neighbourhood Police Posts throughout the country. The number of rape cases, on the other hand, shows no discernable trend, fluctuating between a high of 111 cases (in 1986 and 1990) and a low of 74 cases (in 1991). It is therefore not possible to conclude that the introduction of R(A) films has caused an increase in sexual crimes in Singapore. Nevertheless, Police is closely monitoring the situation. PROPERTY TAX ON RESTRUCTURED HOSPITALS AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND TERTIARY INSTITUTIONS 12. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Finance whether the more "market driven approach" applied by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore in valuation of public sector property will result in Government restructured hospitals and public health and tertiary institutions having to pay higher property tax, leading to further increases in their already high operating costs.”
“Sir, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name. *The amendment reads as follows: In page 15, to leave out lines 30 to 36, and insert - "(a) by deleting the word "State" in the fourth line of subsection (1) and in the third line of subsection (3) and substituting in each case the words "or Commonwealth country"; and (b) by deleting the word "States" in the marginal note and substituting the words "or Commonwealth countries".". Sir, the amendment is to widen the scope of section 43 of the Extradition Act so that the taking of evidence under that section in respect of criminal matters pending in foreign courts may be extended to a request from any foreign or Commonwealth country. Presently, section 43 only applies to a request from a foreign state with which Singapore has an Extradition Treaty. This is far too restrictive. The amendment in the Bill amending section 43 widens the scope of that section to cover a request from a declared Commonwealth country, ie, a Commonwealth country with which we have Extradition agreements. But, Sir, requests for assistance in respect of taking of such evidence have also been received from both foreign and Commonwealth countries with which we have no Extradition treaties or arrangements. The amendment which I am moving now will enable us to accede to a request for such assistance from such foreign or Commonwealth countries. This will be done usually on the basis of reciprocity. Amendment agreed to. Second Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment, read a Third time and passed. INSURANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.30 pm”
“Sir, I need only to touch on the last point raised by Mr Davinder Singh. I completely agree with him. Indeed, I am discussing with the Attorney-General the need to review other legislation, not only the Criminal Procedure Code, which may have such provisions falling back on English law. I think we need to review this with the principle which I have enunciated here, that is, we must have certainty in our laws and move away from reliance on English law, because we do not know what are the conditions and circumstances which presently shape the enactment of laws in the United Kingdom. Another good example, apart from the Criminal Procedure Code, is our own Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. You will find there a provision that when it comes to any doubts as to the privileges and immunities of this House, we are to refer to the United Kingdom House of Commons. I am sure there are several other such legislation. Let me assure him that a review is being done of all such legislation and, where necessary, we shall move amendments in the future to take care of that problem. 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. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clauses 1 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. First Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Second Schedule -”
“The reason for this is that such an offence at present is dealt with in two Imperial statutes - the United Kingdom Admiralty Offences (Colonial) Act 1849 and the Courts (Colonial) Jurisdiction Act 1874. Let me now deal with clause 5 of the Bill, which is also a key provision. Under this clause, no English enactment shall be part of the law of Singapore except as provided in the Bill. The effect is that no pre-1826 English statute and no Imperial Act (other than the three Imperial Acts preserved in the First Schedule) will have any force of law in Singapore. This clause will remove once and for all the possibility of some obscure English statute which no one in Singapore is aware of being one day held to be applicable here. In the event of any unforeseen difficulty in the application of any provision of any English enactment specified in the First Schedule, clause 8 empowers the Minister, on the advice of the Law Revision Commissioners, to make a modification order to modify or substitute that provision. This clause will take care of any unexpected difficulty which cannot at the present moment be fully anticipated. Sir, as I said, this Bill is a major piece of law reform, although it may not excite great public interest because of its technical nature. Nevertheless, it should prove to be of great benefit not only to the legal profession, but also to the business community and the public at large. It does away with antiquated and outmoded English statutes which hitherto apply in Singapore and will provide practitioners and those interested in the law with an authoritative and definitive list of applicable English statutes. What is more important, Sir, is that it will make our commercial law independent of future legislative changes in the United Kingdom.”
“It is not intended to change the legal position as regards the applicability of the common law of England, which to the extent that it continues to apply, is subject to such modifications as the circumstances may require. Clauses 4 and 5 are the key provisions. Clause 4 read with the First Schedule to the Bill authoritatively specifies which English enactments are to apply or to continue to apply in Singapore subject to the necessary modifications. A number of such modifications are set out in subsection (4) of the clause. Clause 4(3) also ensures that in the event of any inconsistency between a provision of an English enactment and a provision of a local Act, the local Act shall prevail. Members will note that Part I of the First Schedule preserves the application of three Imperial Acts while Part II specifies 13 English commercial Acts which will apply or continue to apply in Singapore. Part III of the First Schedule also effects certain amendments to the English commercial Acts to bring them into line with local legislation and local circumstances. The First Schedule does not specify any pre-1826 English statute. This is because those provisions of the pre-1826 English statutes which are still relevant and applicable in Singapore have been restated and revised in modern form and will be incorporated into the appropriate local Acts. Clause 7 and the Second Schedule provide for this restatement and revision. It may be noted that the Second Schedule contains an amendment to section 43 of the Extradition Act, a point which I will deal with later at the Committee stage. It may be noted that the Second Schedule creates a new offence of piracy to be inserted in the Penal Code.”
“So long as that section remains no one can say with certainty at any point of time what our commercial law is unless he has access to the most up-to-date English legislation. Where we do not have our own local legislation in any particular area of commercial law, we may find that an English commercial statute can be held to apply under section 5 regardless, and I emphasise, regardless of whether such application is desirable or not. However, I would say that the most unsatisfactory feature of section 5 is the great difficulty of interpreting its provision to determine whether a particular English statute is applicable in relation to a particular case. There were two Privy Council decisions in 1923 and 1933, which provided different interpretations of the ambit of that section. Sir, our legal system has now attained sufficient maturity for us to repeal section 5 and to cut off the automatic reception of future English commercial statutes. Nevertheless, under the Bill, a number of very important English commercial statutes will continue to apply in Singapore so that the basis of our commercial law remains very much the same as English commercial law which up till now has been applicable under section 5. However, with the repeal of section 5, the important point is that future legislative changes in the United Kingdom will no longer have any effect on our commercial law. Let me now deal with the specific provisions of the Bill. Clause 3 is a declaratory provision of the existing legal position. It preserves the corpus of English common law (including the principles and rules of equity) that now applies or has been received in Singapore as part of the law of Singapore.”
“Apart from these pre-1826 English statutes introduced by the Second Charter of Justice, a number of Imperial statutes were made applicable to Singapore as a colony by the United Kingdom Parliament. These statutes continued to remain applicable after our independence, though some were repealed and replaced by our own legislation. The Imperial Copyright Act of 1911 was, for example, replaced by our own Copyright Act of 1987. Like the pre-1826 English statutes, here again no one can identify with certainty the exact number of Imperial statutes which continues to apply in Singapore today. Quite clearly, there is a great need to clarify the position as to the applicability of pre-1826 English statutes and post-1826 Imperial statutes. I now turn to the reception of English mercantile law under section 5 of our Civil Law Act, a provision well known to lawyers and also a source of considerable legal literature. That section in the Civil Law Act was introduced into our law in 1878 and provides that in any question or issue which arises in Singapore with respect to the law of partnerships, corporations, banks and banking, principals and agents, carriers by air, land and sea, marine insurance, average, life and fire insurance, and generally with respect to mercantile law, the law to be administered shall be the same as that administered in England at the corresponding period unless other provision is made by any Singapore law. Although the section was amended in 1979, in an attempt to reduce the uncertainty as to its scope of application, that amendment did not go far enough and I think, Sir, the time has now come for the repeal of that section altogether.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill has two main objectives. Firstly, it clarifies the application of English law, particularly English statutes, as part of the law of Singapore and removes the considerable uncertainty that currently exists in this regard. Secondly, it makes our commercial law independent of future legislative changes in the United Kingdom - changes which we in fact have no control. The Bill is one of the most significant law reform measures since our independence. In order that Members may appreciate the compelling need for this Bill, let me explain briefly the existing legal position on the application of English statute law and why it is highly unsatisfactory. The Second Charter of Justice of 1826 introduced into Singapore (which was then part of the Straits Settlements) the common law of England, including the principles and rules of equity, as well as English statutes enacted before 27th November 1826. Whether a pre-1826 English statute was received as part of the law of Singapore depended on whether it was one of general application and adaptable to the condition and wants of the inhabitants of the land. Past judicial decisions have authoritatively held that certain pre-1826 English statutes, for example, the Statute of Frauds 1677, have been received in Singapore. However, the problem is that it is not possible to say with certainty what other pre-1826 English statutes which have not been considered by our courts remain receivable. Of those statutes which have been held to apply in Singapore, many are also inaccessible and unavailable to the general public and even to lawyers. Moreover, the language of these ancient statutes is archaic and very difficult to understand.”
“As I said, the Attorney-General is reviewing the papers. I would say that in my discussions with him the offence would probably be that of wrongful confinement and/or abetment of wrongful confinement. The evidence thus far does suggest that apart from the involvement of the Myanmar Embassy, Qantas staff and SATS have given assistance in the confinement of these 11 seamen. Obviously, the Attorney-General would have to study the papers and decide who has committed what breach of the law and what consequential actions must be taken. SMALL FAMILIES IMPROVEMENT SCHEME (Increase in minimum monthly income) 7. Mr Chia Shi Teck asked the Minister for Community Development how many households qualify under the Small Families Improvement Scheme and, if the number is small, whether he will increase the minimum monthly income to S$1,000 per month and subsequently adjust upwards with inflation.”
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has formally protested to the Myanmar Embassy over the actions and conduct of their First Secretary in this affair. ISD investigation papers have been sent to the Attorney-General to determine whether any party has committed any offence, or whether anyone has been negligent and failed to exercise due care and attention in his duties.”
“Although they claimed to have faxed their letter to Immigration and the Airport Police, instead they dealt exclusively with the Qantas Manager throughout the whole episode. The First Secretary told the investigators that although he could not have exercised these powers in Myanmar, he was entitled, as a diplomat in Singapore, to detain the seamen. This assertion of jurisdiction is totally unfounded. (b) Qantas was wrong to assist the Myanmar Embassy. The second leg of the seamen's itinerary from Brisbane via Qantas had been cancelled and their baggage tagged for off-loading at Singapore. Therefore, Qantas' responsibility for these 11 passengers ended when they landed in Singapore, especially since Qantas was subsequently not involved in arranging for the seamen to leave Singapore. All these arrangements had been done by the Myanmar Embassy officials. Qantas had no basis whatsoever to act on the Myanmar Embassy's request to confine the seamen for four days, all this at Qantas' own expense. (c) As for the SATS security officers, ISD's investigations have not established any intentional contravention of the law. However, it was clearly wrong of them to have confined the seamen purely on the request of Qantas and the Myanmar Embassy. The present arrangements for SATS to hold people in the airport pending repatriation are unsatisfactory and must be reviewed. This review has already commenced. (d) There has been no evidence that Myanmar intelligence officials were involved, contrary to Asiaweek report. (e) Immigration Department, Police, CAAS and other Singapore Government Departments were not involved. Sir, the Government takes a very serious view of this incident.”
“For this purpose, the First Secretary handed to Qantas a copy of a letter from the Myanmar Embassy addressed to the OC Immigration Changi Airport with copies to Qantas and Airport Police. The letter requested Immigration to detain the passports of the 11 seamen and to assist in repatriating them to Yangon. Neither Immigration nor Airport Police received the letter. The First Secretary admitted that it was never faxed to the Airport Police. He believed that he may have faxed the copy for Immigration to Qantas on the assumption that Qantas would forward it to Immigration. The First Secretary tried to put the 11 seamen on a flight to Yangon the next day, 4th June 1993, but did not succeed. Three days later, on 7th June 1993, the seamen were eventually flown to Yangon on a Silkair flight. During the whole period, the seamen were confined under SATS guard in an area in Changi Airport normally used to temporarily hold passengers who are prohibited to land in Singapore or other passengers who, because of irregularities of their travel documents, have to be returned to their point of embarkation by the relevant airlines. On the basis of the facts established so far, the following conclusions can be drawn: (a) The actions of the First Secretary of the Myanmar Embassy which resulted in the physical confinement of the 11 seamen were most irregular and, if against the will of the 11 seamen, also illegal. The seamen had not been prohibited by Singapore Immigration from landing in Singapore. They would have been allowed to enter Singapore had they sought to do so. The Myanmar Embassy did not raise with the proper Singapore authorities their desire to repatriate these passengers to Yangon.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member is probably referring to reports in Bangkok newspapers and in Asiaweek of 18th August 1993 concerning 11 Myanmar seamen who were flying from Australia where they had won a wage dispute mediated by the International Transport Workers Federation en route to Bangkok. Asiaweek said that Myanmar military intelligence agents apparently intercepted them at Changi Airport and bought them passage to Yangon. I directed the Internal Security Department (ISD) to conduct a thorough investigation to establish the facts. ISD's investigations have established the following. On 3rd June 1993, at about 7.00 pm, 11 Myanmar seamen arrived at Changi Airport on a Qantas flight from Brisbane. They had originally been booked on a connecting flight from Singapore to Bangkok. But this second leg of their itinerary had been cancelled at the Australian end. As a result, their journey terminated in Singapore. Earlier, on 2nd June, the First Secretary of the Myanmar Embassy in Singapore had received a request from the Chairman of Star Corporation Shipping Company, representing the employer of the seamen, asking him to help repatriate the seamen to Yangon. The First Secretary replied he could not do so without instructions from Yangon. Subsequently, he received such instructions from the Foreign Ministry of Myanmar to assist in repatriating the seamen for breach of agreement relating to their employment. When the seamen arrived in Singapore on 3rd June 1993, the First Secretary got the Qantas Airport Duty Manager to assist him to detain the passports of the 11 Myanmar seamen and to hold the seamen under escort until their departure for Yangon.”
“Clause 172(9) has been amended to give such persons six months instead of three months to do so as it was represented to the Select Committee that six months would give more flexibility. Thirdly, joint tenancies and tenancies in common. Clauses 53(5) and 174(f) have been amended to make it clear that unilateral service of a declaration to sever is an additional means of severing a joint tenancy. Other recognised methods of severing a joint tenancy will still be applicable. This amendment is made to clarify the position because in the Select Committee it was pointed out that this was not sufficiently clear as to whether other recognised methods of severing a joint tenancy would still be applicable. In closing, Sir, let me say that the changes are quite technical. The Select Committee is grateful for assistance given by members of the Law Society and other representors, some of whom are experts in their respective fields. I believe that the changes which are now proposed will improve the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“Since claims to title by way of adverse possession will no longer be permissible for registered land, it follows that such claims should also be abolished for unregistered land. Furthermore, as it would take about 10 years for almost all lands in Singapore to be registered under the Land Titles Act, it would seem odd to continue this distinction between registered land and unregistered land. The amendment is limited to two types of actions which I have referred. Other actions to recover land or to enforce proprietary rights in land will not be affected. These actions must still be instituted within the relevant limitation period, otherwise they will be time-barred. I also wish to stress that the amendment is not retrospective. It will not affect those in possession who have already acquired their title by adverse possession prior to the amendment coming into force. Nor will such persons in possession be required to apply within a time-frame to the court for an order as to their title to the land. I should point out that should any land become registered land through the issue of a qualified certificate of title, an adverse possessor's claim to the land will remain protected only as long as, first, a caution as to title remains on the certificate of title; and, second, the adverse possessor lodges a caveat before such caution has lapsed or been cancelled. Secondly, clause 172(9) enables persons who have, prior to the coming into operation of the Bill, established their title by way of adverse possession of registered land to apply to court for an order or to the Registrar of Titles for a possessory title.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Sir, when moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I pointed out that it was a fairly technical piece of legislation and that therefore we had undertaken considerable consultations, including with bodies like the Law Society, the Real Estate Developers Association, the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers. Nevertheless, because of the technical nature of the Bill, I decided it should be submitted to a Select Committee. The Select Committee received seven written representations and heard oral evidence from three representors. They made several useful suggestions, many of which have been accepted. The Report of the Select Committee was presented to this House on 18th August and the Bill, as set out at Appendix I of the Report, incorporates the amendments made by the Select Committee. The explanations for all the amendments are contained at Appendix V of the Report. Therefore, I only propose to draw the attention of Members to some of the more important changes made by the Select Committee. First, adverse possession for unregistered land. It was suggested to the Select Committee that as the Bill will abolish adverse possession for registered land, adverse possession for unregistered land should also be abolished. A new clause 177 has been inserted to amend the Limitation Act (Cap. 163) to abolish adverse possession in respect of unregistered land in two types of cases: first, where the land is unlawfully occupied by a squatter; and second, redemption actions against mortgagees in possession. Purchasers of land rarely distinguish between registered and unregistered land.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think that really is in point because this is a very strong recommendation from the Police themselves. Amendment negatived. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. BANKING (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.18 pm”
“What I am concerned with, as I have pointed out, are those cases, like kidnapping, abduction and resisting arrest, which are in a sense unique to this kind of problem. If the Minister feels very strongly that he must punish people who just discharge the gun no matter for what purpose, then so be it. But all I am saying is that we have to think very carefully about this because, if some day, you do find that a kidnapped victim or a police officer loses his life because of this, I think that would be a very unfortunate thing indeed.”
“Sir, in addition to the points which I made earlier on why I cannot accept this amendment, let me point out that we have a parallel with the Misuse of Drugs Act. For years, we have had mandatory death penalty if a drug trafficker is caught in possession beyond 15 grams of heroin. We do not ask for the prosecution to prove that he had an intention to give this drug to so and so. It is death penalty because such a large amount of drugs cannot be for purposes of his consumption. This is well-known among drug trafficking syndicates. The signal has gone out. So the drug trafficking syndicates know it before they try their luck in Singapore. Secondly, his argument will also mean that by 15 grams, or whatever other threshold, you are encouraging the drug traffickers to traffic in 20 grams, 50 grams, 100 grams because the punishment is the same. It does not work that way. What we want is a signal that goes out very clearly that in Singapore we have probably one of the world's toughest gun control law. That is the crux of the question. Do we want that or not to protect our society and our people? And I would urge the House to view it from that point of view. In any case, as I pointed out, if we adopt Prof. Walter Woon's amendment, it in fact makes the penalty exactly the same for a person who had it on his person when committing a scheduled offence and such a person drawing and firing it. I think it cannot be right in law, logic or in policy that the penalty should be the same. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Mr Speaker, I do not think the analogy with a drug case is exact because, in the case of drugs, we are not putting at risk anyone in a sense.”
“Easy, just don't get involved when you know one of your gang members has a gun on him, because the provision on accomplice says the court must be satisfied. That person will get the death penalty only if "each of his accomplices present at the scene ... who may reasonably be presumed to have known that that person was carrying or had in his possession" a gun. The court must be satisfied. If the court is not satisfied that he had known, thence no offence. So the best way of preventing it is not that he was in a car and he could not physically prevent it. The whole idea of this accomplice provision is: do not get involved if you know one of your gang members has got a gun. And I think that has been a salutary provision in bringing about the low incidence of guns. In response to Mr Zulkifli, apart from what I mentioned, I should also point out the other safeguard is that he would not have committed an offence involving the death penalty if the accomplice proves that he had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the use of such arm, not after the crime is committed of course. For all practical purposes, it must be that he should have dissuaded the use of a gun before the robbery.”
“Since he is proposing that life imprisonment should suffice, let me point out why this is not acceptable. Prof. Walter Woon's amendment, which he is going to formally move, proposes that in such a situation life imprisonment will suffice. Let me point out, first of all, that under the Act, section 3(3) already punishes with life imprisonment and caning for an offender caught with an arm on his person while committing a scheduled offence. Therefore, his proposal will mean that the penalty should be the same, whether you had arm on you or whether you drew it out and fired it. Surely that cannot be right, that the penalty should be the same for both situations. Next, if you look at the penalty for trafficking in arms under the existing Act, the death penalty can be imposed for a person trafficking in arms. The trafficker in arms can be said not to have caused the death of any person or injury of any person directly. At most, he is an indirect effect. But he can get the death penalty. It seems absurd that an offender who actually discharges and commits an offence is treated more leniently. Next, accomplice. As has been pointed out, an accomplice can get the death penalty. It seems odd that the person who actually fires a gun gets off more leniently. This leads me to the comments made by the others on accomplice. First, in relation to what Mr Ling How Doong has pointed out and, I think, Mr Zulkifli, if you look at the first point, this is not a new provision and it is already in the Act and has been there for many, many years. What we have done is to adjust it to refer to a new section 4A. The rest of the section has been there for a long time. Mr Ling How Doong says - how to prevent it?”
“The situation we are talking about is where he has the audacity to actually in the course of committing, not any offence, a scheduled offence - we single out the more serious offences - he discharges the gun. I say that he deserves no sympathy from us whatsoever. His claim that it went out accidentally is hollow because we want to give a signal to all those contemplating this sequence of events - don't do it. Don't do it in Singapore because the penalty is the most severe penalty that the courts can give out. You have anything less than that, judging by the experiences in other countries, they will take chances. This is the advice of the Police and these are people who have been dealing with criminal elements, and they have a good feel of the pulse of the criminals. Prof. Walter Woon mentioned the point of kidnapping. We are not providing by this amendment that an offender who commits an offence of kidnapping will get mandatory death penalty. But we are saying in a situation where a group of offenders ambush the victim's car, fire off shots, they cannot claim leniency from the law. They must know that firing of a firearm has consequences. And if you talk to the Police, as I have done, they say that it is very theoretical and hypothetical to believe that the criminal in such circumstance is so logical and cool-headed that he will fire the firearm only intending it to be a warning shot. The situation in which such crimes take place is so fast-moving and so unpredictable that you do not expect a criminal to be so calculated. He must be expected to face the consequences of that situation and must have intended to have brought about the consequences if there is injury or death.”
“One of the matters which was ranked was: Is there confidence among the people that the person and property are protected (on a scale of 1 to 10)? Singapore was ranked 9.5. In other words, people's perception that the person and property are protected, we ranked 9.5, the highest among the NICs and higher than the highest ranked country amongst the OECD, with Japan at 9.1. Let us come back to basic facts and the real world. Do we want to keep it this way? I say it is in our interest to keep it this way. How has this been achieved? By fortuitous circumstances? I do not think so. I think the factors are, firstly, we have had strict laws when appropriate. Secondly, laws have been enforced effectively and fairly by an efficient Police force and an impartial and efficient system of courts. Thirdly, there is public support and cooperation with the Police. And I think we have got to keep it that way. Let us come back to the points that he has raised. First, the question about mandatory and non-mandatory sentence and accidentally discharging a gun. I would again urge that we look at the situation. What is the situation? Who are we talking about? The person who has discharged the gun, who will be subject to this strict law, and it is a harsh strict law, that it almost brings the law to that of strict liability, but I make no apologies for it. Who are we talking about? The person must have done the following. First, he must have somehow got hold of a gun. He is in unlawful possession of a gun in the first place. That is fact number one. Second, he carries the gun on his person. That is already bad, even if he is not committing an offence or a scheduled offence. Third, he plans to commit a robbery and he carries a gun along with him. The law deals with that.”
“I thank the Members who have spoken. Let me refer to Prof. Walter Woon's comments, and he has got an amendment to substitute life imprisonment for death penalty which I take it is consequent to the views he has expressed. There are different ways in which we can approach the examination of this amendment. One could take a very legalistic, purist, approach to analysing this amendment. But as the Minister for Home Affairs in charge of making sure that our peace, security and law and order are maintained, I must take into account the hard facts of life. One hard fact of life, let me say at the outset, is that in the many discussions I had with the Commissioner of Police and the Director of CID, the Director of CID has told me that the perception or understanding in the criminal underworld when they amended the Act in 1973 was that discharge per se of a gun would carry the death penalty. It may have been a mistaken non-legal academic interpretation of the Act. But he says that the underworld understood it to be that for 20 years until recently. Whether it is until recently because of the goldsmith robbery case, I do not know. But until recently, the underworld has understood the law to be that discharge per se of a gun you get the death penalty. The Director of CID strongly believes that is one of the reasons why there has been a low incidence of firearm robbery. I say to this House that if you want to keep Singapore away from the path of the United States and other countries where the use of guns is commonplace, we better give a clear signal. In this regard, I think it is relevant for me to mention that the World Competitiveness Report 1993 ranked 23 OECD countries and 15 NICs on a wide variety of matters.”
“In any case, the public is equally put to alarm and fear by such attempts. There is therefore no reason to treat them otherwise. Next, Sir, vide clause 4 of the Bill, section 5 will also be re-enacted to make the accomplice of an offender of section 4A who is present at the scene of the crime and who ought reasonably to be aware of the fact that the offender is armed and who fails to take reasonable steps to prevent the discharge of the arm guilty of an offence punishable with death. This is the principle which is presently set out in the Act. Finally, Sir, one minor procedural amendment is that under section 12 of the Arms Offences Act, the President is empowered to amend the Schedule to the Act by an order. In modern legislation, such powers are normally conferred on the Minister. My Ministry proposes to amend the section to transfer this power to the Minister. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Under section 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, it is also provided that where a person is found in possession of a controlled drug, he is presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have known the nature of the controlled drug that he possesses. Secondly, Sir, and this is the main amendment, a new section 4A is introduced creating a new capital offence. Under this new section 4A, any person who discharges or attempts to discharge an arm in the course of committing or attempting to commit any offence listed in the Schedule, in other words, a scheduled offence, will be guilty of an offence punishable with death. This is to rectify the defect I mentioned earlier, ie, to provide for a heavier penalty for an offender who actually discharges or who attempts to discharge an arm while in the course of commission or attempted commission of a scheduled offence. Under this new section, there is no requirement for the prosecution to prove that the offender had the intention to cause injury to any person by the discharge or attempted discharge of his arm. As long as the prosecution can prove that he discharged his arm or attempted to discharge his arm while in the course of committing a scheduled offence, he will be guilty of this new offence. The reason for making attempted discharge of an arm while in the course of commission or attempted commission of a scheduled offence a capital offence is because offenders concerned have done everything they could in respect of these offences. In the case of attempted discharge, the arm failed to fire for reasons which are beyond their control. In the case of attempted commission, the offence was not completed because of external factors such as the timely arrival of the Police or the intervention of security guards.”
“A firearm is, as we all know, a very lethal weapon, and when fired, it can cause death or injury even to innocent bystanders in the vicinity, whatever the intention of the accused may be. Therefore, arms and firearms must be distinguished from other weapons like knives, parangs and so on. Not only to innocent bystanders but the discharge of a firearm has a tremendous effect of causing alarm on the population. Sir, crimes of violence of this kind must be strongly deterred and suppressed. In particular, the unlawful use of arms must not be condoned. Otherwise, it will lead to greater use of arms for unlawful purposes in Singapore and we will face the experience of many other countries in this regard. Peace and good order, which we value so much in Singapore, will be threatened. If I may go on to the amendments, Sir. The amendments achieve the following changes. First, by introducing a presumption clause under section 4(2) of the Act, vide clause 2, any person who has discharged a firearm will be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have intended to cause injury to a person. The evidential burden will now be on the offender. To rebut the presumption, he has to produce evidence to prove that he did not intend to cause injury to anyone. This will assist the prosecution to overcome the evidentiary burden in this section. Sir, the use of presumption clause for capital offence is not new. There are numerous precedents in the Misuse of Drugs Act where it is provided, for example, that where a person is proved to have the keys of anything containing a controlled drug, he is presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have had that drug in his possession.”
“The Court found, on the evidence, that the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt an intention to injure the security guards and, accordingly, the capital charges were reduced to possession of arms at the time of commission of a scheduled offence under section 3(3), an offence which carries a penalty of life imprisonment. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is concerned that this defect in the Act, if not cured, will lead to a situation where criminals who are familiar with the current legal position and bent on using the firearms would not hesitate to discharge them. Because of this defect, there is a possibility that seasoned criminals who discharged their firearms in the course of the commission of a scheduled offence may get off on the lesser offence of possession. They know that they have a chance of escaping the death penalty by pleading an absence of intention to injure any person. Although evidence of intention can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, eg, where someone has been killed or injured as a result of the discharge of the firearm, it is difficult to prove such an intention where no one is injured. Therefore, the law as it stands now is open to criticism because it in fact favours a criminal who intends to injure but who cannot shoot well. Surely this cannot be right. In law, logic or in policy, possession of firearms is a grave offence. Carrying it with you on your person when you are committing an offence is even worse. Discharging it when committing an offence must be viewed most seriously. The punishment for such offences should not be made dependent on an accused's intention.”
“Under section 3(3) of the Act, any person who is armed at the time of the commission or apprehension for any of the scheduled offences - in other words, he has an arm on his person - will be guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life and at least 6 strokes of the cane. But if he discharges his firearm without intending to injure anyone in the course of commission of the offence, the law does not provide for a heavier penalty which is death. Why is this so? This is because section 4 of the Act imposes the mandatory death penalty only in cases where an offender uses or attempts to use an arm with the intention to cause physical injury to a person. To secure a conviction under section 4, the prosecution therefore has to prove the requisite intention to cause injury. In cases where injury or death is caused, of course, it would be easier for the prosecution to argue that the offender must have intended to cause injury as it is a logical consequence of the act of his discharge of the weapon. In cases where no injury is caused, the prosecution will find it difficult, if not impossible, to prove this intention. Indeed, this line of defence was put forward by three goldsmith robbers in a recent case. Members may remember reading the report of this case recently in June where three shots had been fired by the robbers during the robbery. No one was injured during the shooting. The prosecution sought to prove that two of the shots were fired at a security guard and another shot was fired at another guard with intent to cause injury. The accused denied any such intention.”
“In Malaysia, as with China, an important factor contributing to this rise is the increased inflow of smuggled arms into the country. Cases of multiple murders involving firearms that come to mind are those of Bentong Kali who killed 16 persons before he was shot dead by the Malaysian Police, as well as the secret society killings in Sungei Petani. The Police are also concerned that as China and the Indochinese countries continue to open up, the Police expect the supply of arms smuggled out from these countries to increase. Some will find their way into Singapore. It is absolutely important that we do not let such trafficking and illegal use of firearms, including grenades and bombs, to creep into our country. In Singapore, the recovery of hand grenades in two recent incidents provides justification for this concern. The first incident involved the discovery of two usable "Vietnam War era" grenades in a canal at Bedok in October 1991. The second incident involved an armed robbery of a goldsmith shop where two similar grenades were recovered on 19th November last year. These incidents underscore the possibility that firearms are being brought into Singapore from other places in the region. On 30th March 1992, one pregnant lady was killed when the car she was in was blown up with the use of explosives. Therefore, Sir, the signal must go out clearly and loudly to all criminals, foreign and local, that we will take a very tough stand in Singapore. Otherwise, Singapore will not be spared from a rise in violent offences such as robberies, involving the use of firearms. Therefore, we need to amend the Arms Offences Act to provide greater deterrent effect. Sir, the amendments will also plug a loophole in the Arms Offences Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Let me say, at the outset, Sir, that the incidence of firearm robbery cases today is low. There were nine firearm robbery cases in 1992 - a drop from the 174 cases reported 20 years ago in 1973. So Members may be wondering why then is this Bill being moved. Let me explain. The Police are extremely concerned over regional trends which show a marked increase in the use of firearms in the commission of crimes and an upsurge in the flow of smuggled arms across borders. Members are probably aware of the crime situation in the United States and the easy availability of arms there. But they may not know that in our region itself, countries are also experiencing a very big rise in violent crimes involving the use of firearms. For example, in China, the authorities are alarmed at the increase in murder, robbery and kidnapping cases in recent years involving the use of firearms and have taken measures to counter this rise. A related phenomenon is the increasing trade in black-market arms, most of which are being smuggled into the various countries in the region. In Taiwan, in 1992 alone, a total of 6,377 units of arms, including rifles, handguns, imitation arms, were recovered by the authorities - more than a four-fold increase from the number recovered in 1991. And our closest neighbour, Malaysia, which has similar firearm laws as Singapore, has not been spared. Over the past five years, there have been almost 3,500 firearm offences in Malaysia, about 16 times that of Singapore, calculated on a per capita basis. The incidence of firearm robberies, despite stringent enforcement by the Malaysian Police, remains high.”
“Sir, the broad policies are quite well known and have been articulated. If there is any particular area that the Member feels is not sufficiently clear, she can either take it up in a subsequent Question for Oral Answer or raise it with my Ministry and we will look into it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry and the Citizenship Registry are very liberal in these cases because there are ample provisions in the Constitution for the Registry of Citizenship to grant citizenship in such cases.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have liberalised our immigration policies in recent years. For example, while five years ago, slightly more than half of the PR applications from spouses of Singaporean citizens were approved, the position now is that the vast majority (75%) of applications from foreign spouses are approved. As for citizenship, we are also liberal. More than 90% of the citizenship applications by foreign spouses are approved. The Government will constantly keep under review its immigration policies and make adjustments, whenever necessary, for our national interests.”
“ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Dr Lee Boon Yang]. Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes past Three o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPGRADING OF BLOCKS 22 TO 26, SIN MING ROAD 1. Mr Leong Horn Kee asked the Minister for National Development when will Blocks 22 to 26 at Sin Ming Road which are over 20 years old be scheduled for the Housing and Development Board upgrading exercise.”
“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 113) approves the reclamation by the Government of the foreshore and seabed between Pulau Seraya and Pulau Merlimau; Pulau Ayer Chawan and Pulau Ayer Merbau and Pulau Sakra containing an area of about 166.59 hectares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 1/93" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) will reclaim about 166.59 hectares of the foreshore and seabed for the integration of four islands, namely Pulau Merlimau, Pulau Seraya, Pulau Ayer Chawan and Pulau Ayer Merbau for the enlargement of Pulau Sakra as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 1/93". A copy of this plan is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. JTC is the Government's agent for the reclamation, which is expected to commence in April 1994 and be completed by April 1997. This reclamation is part of Government's project to amalgamate seven southern islands to form Jurong Island. The island, totalling some 3000 hectares, will be for industrial use. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with Section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 113) approves the reclamation by the Government of the foreshore and seabed between Pulau Seraya and Pulau Merlimau; Pulau Ayer Chawan and Pulau Ayer Merbau and Pulau Sakra containing an area of about 166.59 hectares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 1/93" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.”
“When they looked at the legislation, they also looked at critiques of the other legislation and whatever experiences have taken place in that overseas country in the enforcement and implementation of their law. So I may not be able to give a specific answer to his detailed query, but to say that careful consideration has been given. In other words, it has not been blind copying or adoption of the foreign provisions. We have to amalgamate and take what we consider were the best provisions. We will have to see, in the light of experience, how these provisions work. I am sure that as the years go by we may need to fine-tune or improve these provisions. We are really creating here a novel legislation. We have to learn from the experiences of other countries. We hope that what we have put to Parliament is adequate. But if it is not adequate, we shall not hesitate to refine and modify the legislation in the light of experience, as other countries have done. 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. RECLAMATION (PULAU SERAYA, PULAU MERLIMAU, PULAU AYER CHAWAN, PULAU AYER MERBAU AND PULAU SAKRA)”
“I want to assure him that the CCD will have adequate qualified manpower resources to conduct computer crime investigations in the foreseeable future. Some foreign police forces, for example, the Scotland Yard in England, have created specialist units in their organisation to enforce such legislation. I am not sure whether it is necessary for us to do that at this stage because the volume of cases may not justify the establishment of such an unit. For the time being, I think the approach of having this specialised unit in the CCD is sufficient. As for minors, there are no special provisions here. Obviously, this will be one of the factors to be taken into account by the court in the imposition of the sentence which, incidentally, is another answer why you need to have a range of penalties as set out in the Bill. But I do not think that it is the intention of this Parliament that minors and teenagers should get away scot-free. As was pointed out, they can cause considerable damage and inconvenience as has happened in other countries. So they are obviously within the ambit of these provisions. Dr Toh Keng Kiat has made some specific points about the detailed drafting of the provisions. I do not think I can give chapter and verse here as to why on a particular provision we departed from the exact wording of the United Kingdom legislation. But in answer to him, let me say that when drafting this Bill it went through several stages. First, the Commercial Crime Division worked on it, then the Attorney-General's Chambers, and before final casting it was carefully studied by an expert committee known as the Law Reforms Sub-Committee of the Academy of Law, headed by the Dean of the Law Faculty. They not only looked at the United Kingdom legislation but also other legislation.”
“I would like to point out that it is not a single discipline kind of industry and, unlike doctors and lawyers, I do not think one needs to have a licence or professional registered qualification in order to write a computer program or to engage in a computer software business. But, nevertheless, I am sure my colleagues in the other Ministries will take note of the comments that he has made. Dr Ho Tat Kin asked if the sale of passwords, for example, will be considered as a preparatory act. I think it very much depends on the nature of the case. In some cases, it could very well be that the Police can make a case out that, in that particular set of circumstances, the sale of the passwords is an essential prior step to the commission of an offence, in which case, I have no doubt that the Police will treat it so and bring about a prosecution. He asked about the capability of the Police to enforce this Act, bearing in mind the complexities of the problem and the need for expertise. Let me say that the legislation will actually be enforced by the Commercial Crime Division (CCD) of the CID Department, which is a rather specialised investigative body. The CCD has investigators who are computer-literate and several of them are graduates who have completed university courses in programming and have computer-based information or systems knowledge. Several of them have been trained locally and overseas and particularly for the purpose of conducting computer crime investigations. I take his point that computer technology is complex and fast changing. Therefore, I have encouraged the CCD to adopt an approach of working with external computer experts depending on the nature of the case.”
“But, in any case, I wish to point out to them that if you look at the penalties, do not just focus on the $2,000 fine because it may be possible for an accused person to pay up the fine. But there is a discretion vested in the courts to also inflict the penalty of a jail sentence which, I think, for any accused person, is very important, or a combination of both fine and jail. And there is a two-tier approach which has been taken in several other countries, for example, Switzerland and Australia, depending on the damage. So the penalties are not that light if you look at them in the way I have suggested. Some have commented quite correctly that computer crimes can result in invisible, intangible damage which cannot be quantified. That is true. But in so far as crafting offences is concerned, the courts will have to require proof and evidence to be adduced. And what is more easy and practical a measure is to have damage, which of course must mean physical damage. This is not to say that the victim of a computer crime who has suffered other kinds of damage, eg, loss of earning, loss of income, and so on, has no other remedy. He will still have remedies in civil law to bring about suit for damages in terms of earnings lost, income gone, and so on. So while I note the general sentiment for tougher penalties, there are these points which I would like them to note. Dr Arthur Beng also asked if there should not be a self-regulatory body for information technology. Actually, that is quite outside the scope of this Bill and I would not like to speak on behalf of the other Ministers who are in charge of the computer industry as a whole, like the Minister for Trade and Industry. I am sure he will take note of the comments.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Members who have spoken. Quite a number of Members have commented on the provisions with regard to penalties. It would appear that most of them are more hawkish than me in this regard. But I would like them and, in particular, Dr Wang Kai Yuen who, at one end of the spectrum, wants the penalties under the Vandalism Act, including mandatory caning, to be imposed, and that also, through the process of interpretation, the courts will listen to what I say here and then they will say, "Well, the punishment must be caning." Of course, that cannot be done. I would like them to note that when crafting penalties in the Bill, we have got to bear in mind that, firstly, a certain amount of jurisdiction and discretion must be given to our courts. Secondly, we must bear in mind the circumstances which will present themselves to the courts in various cases will differ vastly, eg, age of the accused, cited by Dr Ho Tat Kin, whether there are mitigating circumstances, the entire context in which the offence took place, the motives, the intentions, the damage caused, and so on and so forth. And because the circumstances can be so varied, it is not desirable to straitjacket the Bill with a narrow or very heavy penalty and leave very little room for the courts to exercise jurisdiction, particularly in an area where we are charting a new territory in Singapore. We have, in fact, very few computer crimes prosecuted so far, as Dr Toh has mentioned. I think it is safe to say that there may be more which will come over the years ahead. But we should not assume that the types of cases will be so clear-cut and so stereotype that we can have a fixed penalty of a narrow nature or of a very heavy nature which does not allow the courts to have some discretion.”
“For this reason, clauses 11, 12 and 13 of the Bill contain special provisions for computer output to be admissible in Court for prosecution under the Bill. To summarise, Sir, this Bill allows the authorities and the Court to deal effectively with that small minority of persons who perpetrate computer and computer-assisted crime. It will send a deterrent signal to all those who intend to misuse or exploit computer technology with criminal intent. At the same time, it is my hope that the Bill will have a reassuring effect to the majority of persons and organisations for whom the computer has become indispensable in their lives and business activities. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Under clause 4 of the Bill, it will be an offence for anyone to cause a computer to perform any function for the purpose of securing access without authority to a computer program or data with the intention of committing offences involving property, fraud, dishonesty or which causes bodily harm punishable upon conviction with imprisonment for a term of two years or more. As the potential offered by computer technology is exploited to facilitate or commit further offences, the penalty for this offence is even more severe than the other three offences. Upon conviction, the offender is liable to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to both. If I may turn to enforcement and proof. To ensure effective enforcement, all offences under the Bill will be made seizable. A police officer may arrest without warrant any person reasonably suspected of having committed one of these offences. There is no need for a specific provision under the Bill to empower the Police to confiscate the equipment of a suspect as these powers already exist in the Criminal Procedure Code. Clause 14 empowers a police officer (in addition to the powers under the Criminal Procedure Code) in connection with the investigation of offences, first, to have access to, inspect and check the operations of any computer and any associated apparatus or material; and, secondly, to require the user, or any person having the charge, of the computer to provide him with reasonable assistance in the investigation. Because of the intangible nature of computer transactions, Members will understand that proof of computer offences will not be easy to establish.”
“Any person using or causing to be used the computer or any other device for the purpose of unauthorised use or interception of computer service will also be committing an offence under this clause. The penalties for these three computer offences are identical. The offender would be liable to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both. If the offender causes any damage by the offences exceeding $10,000, the offender will be liable to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both. The punishment for these three offences has been carefully considered. Where no damage is caused or the damage caused by the commission of these offences is minimal, the offence would attract a lesser penalty. In other cases where the damage caused to the computer system or data is substantial, that is, above $10,000, the offence will attract a heavier penalty. This two-tier approach, it is hoped, will deter would-be offenders from doing anything which could be potentially capable of causing damage to computer systems and data such as planting viruses, logic bombs and wiping out software and data. It is essential that computer systems, which play an essential and vital role in this age of modern society in Singapore, be protected. However, if there are extenuating and mitigating circumstances, the Court can still exercise its discretion to impose a lesser penalty. That may address the concerns that a person who unwittingly causes extensive damage may be subject to the higher penalty. The fourth new offence deals with computer-assisted-crime where a computer is used to commit further offences.”