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 29 of 66.
“Let me deal with the first offence. The first offence deals with unauthorised access. Under clause 3 of the Bill, anyone who knowingly causes a computer to perform any function for the purpose of securing access without authority to any computer program or data will be guilty of an offence. This provision against unauthorised access deals with what is commonly referred to as "hacking". Persons who knowingly "hack" into computer systems even without malicious intent can be prosecuted under this provision. The second offence deals with unauthorised modification. This is because computer technology allows the relatively easy modification of computer programs or data. Under clause 5, it will be an offence for any person to do any act which he knows will cause an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer. This will cover introduction of viruses into a computer system. "Unauthorised modification" has been widely defined in clause 2 to include the addition of any program or data into the contents of a computer. The third offence deals with unauthorised use or interception of computer service. Under clause 6 of the Bill, it will be an offence for anyone to knowingly use or intercept without authority computer service, ie, computer time, data processing, storage or retrieval of data. Not only can computer service be expensive, but it can also contain sensitive and confidential information such as financial information and business particulars. Unauthorised use or interception of computer service is made illegal, for example, where such information is retrieved or used without the knowledge or approval of the owner of the computer system.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." By way of introduction, may I say, Sir, that, as we all know, computer technology today has a great impact on the economic life in our country. The technology is used in nearly all sectors of society - public sector, financial and banking community, service industries, manufacturing and trading sectors, and so on - in order to enhance productivity and business competitiveness. While computers undoubtedly have much beneficial uses, they are also capable of being abused for criminal or selfish objectives. The widespread use of computer technology in Singapore and the growing reliance on it makes us more vulnerable to such abuses. The objective of the Bill, Sir, is to deal with crimes committed with or involving the use of computers, for which existing legislation is inadequate. Let me touch on the main features of the Bill. Presently, computer or computer-assisted crimes reported to the Police are dealt with under our general existing laws, eg, as cases of mischief, theft, cheating, criminal breach of trust under the Penal Code. But it is difficult to proceed under these general laws because of the special nature of computer technology. Furthermore, the existing penalties under the general laws do not always sufficiently deter computer criminals, eg, mischief under section 426 of the Penal Code only carries a maximum jail sentence of three months or a fine. The Penal Code, enacted many years ago, is also inadequate in dealing with the misuse of computers. This Bill, Sir, therefore, incorporates those offences which are unique to computer technology. Let me say that the Bill is modelled largely after the United Kingdom Computer Misuse Act, 1990. It creates four new offences.”
“There is a wide variety of reasons why people may resort to illegal moneylenders. He said that men gamble and wives desert. There are also women who gamble and cause family savings to go away. I am not sure it is so simplistic that if we did away with gambling, if it can be done away with at all, we will not have illegal moneylenders. I think the problem will be with us for some time and it is incumbent upon us to craft legislative and enforcement measures to contain the 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. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. COMPUTER MISUSE BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in answer to Dr Arthur Beng's question, it really boils down to how we draft the legislation. The approach we have taken is to craft the amendments to deal with the specific problems. We could have, of course, taken a broader approach to deal with damage to common property, and so on, and that will widen the ambit of the legislation. But let me say that it does not follow that where damage is caused to other properties, particularly public property, there is no remedy at all. It would be an offence under the Penal Code or the Vandalism Act and appropriate actions can be taken. But we decided to craft the amendments to deal with the specific problems covered by the Moneylenders Act. Mr Zulkifli asked what is the current assessment. Basically, it depends on Parliament and the Police to convey the correct signals to the trouble-makers involved. The passage of this Bill will give unequivocal signal that such acts of hooliganism, thuggishness and gangsterism will not be tolerated. And the Commissioner for Police, I am sure Members have read, has come out very clearly, speaking on behalf of the entire Police Force, that whether it is moneylending, granny-bashing, road bullies, the Police will not tolerate such acts of criminal intimidation. So I think the signal is clear. In fact, the Police have told me that even when the Bill was introduced in Parliament, the fact of its introduction already has a dampening effect on the problems which I have just outlined. So let us hope that the passage of this Bill and the subsequent enforcement will have a further effective deterrent value. On Mr Chiam's point, maybe he is right that gambling is one of the causes. But having spoken to the Director of CID, it is not the only cause.”
“For such aggravated offences, the courts can impose caning of up to six strokes in addition to the penalties I have just mentioned. In order to facilitate and expedite investigation and prosecution of such offenders, the Bill makes such offences seizable and non-bailable. This will enable the Police and the courts to effectively enforce and give effect to the increased penalties and new offences introduced in this Bill. The Police, therefore, will have powers to arrest, without warrant, anyone suspected of having committed an offence under the Act and to examine any person acquainted with the facts of the case. Bail will also be disallowed in cases where the suspect may be involved in the commission of other offences or where accomplices are at large. Sir, I hope Members will agree that these amendments are both timely and necessary in order to check the growth of the problems caused by loansharking. We cannot let such activities go unchecked as they would have severe social and law and order consequences on the members of our community. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.03 pm”
“The amendments will provide for an increase in the fines imposed on illegal moneylenders from the present maximum of $5,000 to fines of between $10,000 and $100,000 for the first-time individual offenders. In the case of repeat offenders, the fines have been increased to between $20,000 and $200,000 from the present maximum fine of $5,000. In addition, such offenders may also be jailed up to a maximum of 12 months. For companies, the Bill increases the penalties to fines of between $20,000 and $200,000 from the present maximum of $10,000 regardless of whether the company offender was the first-time offender. For illegal moneylenders who resort to harassment and intimidation in the course of extracting repayment from debtors, they will be liable to increased penalties of between $2,000 and $20,000 from a maximum fine of $2,000. In addition, such offenders will also be liable to be jailed up to a maximum of 12 months from the present maximum of three months. Companies which resort to such harassment practices will also face increased fines of between $4,000 and $40,000 compared to the present maximum fine of $5,000. A significant provision in this Bill is the creation of a new offence to deal with debt collectors, hired by illegal moneylenders, to recover their loans. The present law does not make it an offence for such debt collectors who also resort to harassment and intimidation in the course of their debt collection activities. Such debt collectors will now face identical penalties to those faced by illegal moneylenders in the Bill. Over and above these penalties, the Bill also introduces a special penalty where the illegal moneylender or debt collector causes hurt in order to recover a debt.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill amends the Moneylenders Act to increase the quantum of penalties for illegal moneylending and unwarranted harassment and intimidation of debtors, to create a new offence in that regard and to give greater powers to the Police under the Act. Members, I am sure, would have read numerous accounts in the press of illegal moneylenders or loansharks resorting to the use of threats and violence in extracting payment from debtors for loans given. These loans were often at exorbitant rates of interest. They prey on debtors who, having no access to the usual channels of raising finance, had no recourse except to look to those loansharks for their funds. The number of cases of illegal moneylending reported to the Police has shown a marked increase over the last six years. In 1992 alone, a total of 700 cases were reported which is more than double the number of cases reported in 1987 and more than the total number of cases reported for 1987 and 1988. The figures for 1992 represent an alarming increase of more than 32% from the figures for 1991. The number of harassment cases involving the use of threats and force has also increased, sometimes even inflicting grievous hurt. Sir, we must act swiftly and decisively in sending a strong message to all illegal moneylenders that such activities will not be tolerated. The Bill seeks to do this by combining substantial increases in the penalties meted out for such activities together with greater powers of investigation and enforcement on the part of the Police. The existing legislation does not provide for adequate penalties to deter such illegal activities.”
“As I have said, the information given by the Registrar of Pawnbrokers is that items have been pawned for as much as $40,000. So obviously, that is not so. 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; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. COMPANIES (AMENDMENT) BILL (As reported from Select Committee) Order for Third Reading read.”
“I think it is a fair point that it should be covered by insurance at that time.”
“On his question about the amendment to the premises, actually if he looks at the original provisions of the Moneylenders Act, this amendment is to improve the existing provision because the existing provision requires the Registrar to be satisfied that the premises to be licensed are structurally adapted for use as a pawnbroker's shop and in all other respects are suitable for that purpose. So the amendment is a better approach because, as he said, those aspects should be really covered by the Building Control Division. As for adequate insurance, this will be necessary, but the exact quantum of it must be left to the Registrar of Pawnbrokers to decide. He has mentioned the point about the payments which the pawnbrokers are entitled to. I take his point that there should be a review whether these are minuscule or not. His final question on the latest figure of pawnbrokers, I have to ask the Registrar of Pawnbrokers for the details and give it to him. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked why the surpluses which are unclaimed must go to the Accountant-General. This is a general principle of financial procedures in the Government. As to whether it should be donated to charity, because he considers this as extra income for the Government, what is wrong with the extra income for Government? It goes to the State, which is then used for all sorts of development purposes. I see nothing wrong with it. Unless the Finance Minister tells me that the Registrar of Pawnbrokers is doing something inherently wrong, I think we should keep to that provision. Mr Chng Hee Kok raised the question of whether there will be insurance coverage during the interim period before it is sold. This is a question which I will ask the Registrar of Pawnbrokers to consider.”
“I want to thank the Members who have spoken. First, Mr Chiam concludes, from the figures that I have given, that there must be a great deal of poor people using these pawnshops. In fact, this is not necessarily so. I had a discussion with the Registrar of Pawnbrokers and he has, in fact, said to me that patterns have changed. In his dealings with pawnbrokers, his assessment is that it is no longer the poor or the needy who are compelled to go to the pawnshops. In fact, more wealthy people and businessmen are resorting to their valuables to raise funds for various purposes to meet short term needs for working capital, as pawning an item is a quick method of obtaining finance. So I asked him for examples. He also pointed out that there are less formalities to be observed than going to the banks for loans because no further security is required. He has pointed out to me that this is demonstrated by the large number of branded goods and other valuable items that are appearing at the auctions. For example, the April 1993 auction saw a gold ingot pawned at $16,000, a gold diamond Rolex watch pawned at $14,000, two gold Rolex watches with gold bracelets pawned at $9,000 and $8,000 respectively, three gold bracelets pawned at $8,000. In one previous auction, there was a jewellery box which had been pawned at about $40,000. So patterns have shifted and it is not that huge crowds of poor people are going to these pawnbrokers.”
“Existing penalties have generally been enhanced as a deterrent measure. In addition, three new offences have been created concerning the illegal handling of pledges by pawnbrokers. The Registrar will be given the power to compound minor offences prescribed as compoundable by the Minister. In short, Sir, this Bill is a consequence of the reforms and tightening-up which have been introduced with regard to the pawnbroking business. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Prior to that, hardly any surplus (ie, the difference between the pawned value and the sale price of the unredeemed pledge which the pawner is entitled to) resulted from the sale of the pledges. And when any surplus was realised, the pawners were not informed as the present Act does not require the pawnbrokers to provide the information. Unless a demand is received from a pawner within four months of the auction, pawnbrokers are not under any obligation to refund the surplus. In this regard, the amendments will safeguard the rights of pawners to any surplus and place the onus on the pawnbrokers to inform pawners of any surplus and to account to the Registrar for any deductions from the surplus before refunding any surplus to the pawners. Even pawners who fail to claim their surplus will not be deprived of their rights as these amendments provide for their right to make a claim at any time during a period of six years from the payment of any unclaimed surplus to the Accountant-General after which the unclaimed monies will be transferred to the Consolidated Fund. In order for the Registrar to perform his duties more effectively, the Bill empowers him to order a pawnbroker to deliver pledges, books and accounts of his business on the expiration, cancellation or termination of his licence whenever he has reason to believe that any dishonesty on the part of the pawnbroker has taken place in the disposal of the pledges. Pawnbrokers will also have to provide insurance coverage against damage, theft or loss of pawned articles to ensure the protection of pawners. The deposit required to be lodged with the Accountant-General as security for the proper conduct of the pawnbroking business has also been increased from $5,000 to $20,000.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Pawnbrokers Act was last amended in 1977, some 13 years ago. Since then, the pawnbroking business has seen a phenomenal growth. The amount of loans given to the public in exchange for pledges increased 88% from $406 million in 1981 to $762 million in 1992. On a conservative estimate, some 2.5 million pledges pawned at 57 pawnshops in 1992 alone were valued at $1.3 billion. The public auction of unredeemed pledges for the period January to December 1992 saw an average of 20,000 pledges with a gross value of about $6 million sold each month. Sir, the amendments before the House today are to ensure stricter control and supervision of the pawnbroking business through closer monitoring and regulation, greater enforcement of the law and stiffer penalties for breaches of the law. The Bill also enlarges the powers and jurisdiction of the Registrar of Pawnbrokers so that he can carry out his duties more effectively. I think Members will know from press accounts that we have tightened and improved the auctioning procedures for unredeemed pledges since October 1991. This is to ensure that auctioning exercises were carried out in a fair and open manner. Changes in the auctioning procedures which were introduced administratively have been further improved and fine-tuned. New auctioning rules will be made to give effect to the new procedures when these amendments come into force. Since the introduction of the new administrative measures in October 1991, a total amount of $1.3 million in surpluses has been realised from the auctions for payment to pawners.”
“Sir, the authorities as well as the judiciary, I am sure, will welcome any useful suggestions from the Member or anybody else which would help to facilitate this process of getting people to pay the composition fees. As far as the Police are concerned, the department in the Police which would be most interested, as far as composition of fees is concerned, would be the Traffic Police. As I have just mentioned in my answer, the Traffic Police is one of the departments which has recently embarked on this educational and awareness campaign. FOREIGN MEDICAL DEGREES (Registration in Singapore) 5. Dr Toh Keng Kiat asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there will be a review of the list of universities and medical schools in the United Kingdom and elsewhere from which medical degrees will be recognised for registration in Singapore and (b) whether the medical register for doctors with the Singapore Medical Council is closed to foreign graduates.”
“Finally, Sir, I wish to inform the Member that the Attorney-General and the Ministry of Law are now reviewing the law to ascertain if the composition fee or pleading guilty by letter can be extended to further categories of offences.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, procedures already exist whereby such offenders can avoid having to attend court. This is so in respect of compoundable offences. They need not attend court if they pay the composition fee. In the majority of departmental summonses referred to by the Member, the offenders are offered composition. The problem of the large number of court cases arises only because many people ignore offers of composition and allow them to lapse, leading to summonses requiring them to appear in court. Whey they do appear, most of them plead guilty. Furthermore, in relation to many departmental offences, an offender may plead guilty by letter and agree to pay the fine which may be imposed. This also does away with the need to appear in court. As many of the offenders could be unaware of the benefits of composition payment to avoid attending court, efforts are now being made to educate and inform the public of the advantage of compounding offences. In his address at the Opening of the new Subordinate Courts in January this year, the Chief Justice has emphasised the need for offenders to fully utilise the composition facility available in the majority of departmental summonses. Recently, the Housing and Development Board, the Urban and Redevelopment Authority and the Traffic Police followed this up by mounting a joint initiative to educate motorists on the advantages of paying composition fines promptly. In recent years, a number of departments have introduced various measures to make composition payments easier, eg, payment by telephone banking, automated teller machine, electronic fund transfer or payment at post office.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Committee on the Supply of Lawyers took into account the following factors: (a) The admission standards, curricula, research records, student population, staff and other factors such as library resources, areas of specialisation and distribution of class honours. (b) Whether the university is a traditional source for the training of Singapore law students. In the past three years, these 15 universities produced more than 50% of the total number of law graduates from Singapore. Sir, the Committee also considered that the courses offered by the university should, as a rule, have pure law subjects and the courses which are opened to "A" level holders should at least be 3-year full-time courses. Finally, Sir, I believe the Member is aware that these recommendations are not retrospective and will not adversely affect students in the universities where they were enroled or were accepted in the universities before the date of the Committee's report. DEPARTMENTAL SUMMONSES (Improvement to procedure and execution) 4. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Law whether the procedure and execution of departmental summonses will be improved with a view to cutting down the number of offenders having to attend court.”
“Indeed, PAP MPs are required to uphold higher standards of rectitude than others, and expect to be given less leeway than others should they commit some misdeeds. The Government may exercise leniency with other offenders, if the offences are not serious and there are extenuating circumstances, but it will find it very hard to be lenient to its own MPs without the party and the Government being severely criticised. The SDP touts itself as the alternative government of Singapore. As a result of this episode, a big question mark hangs over it concerning its position. After this episode, the question Singaporeans must ask is whether the SDP maintains the high standards of honesty and integrity which Singaporeans have come to expect from their Government, or whether the SDP compromises principles and bends rules to protect its own members, even before gaining power. Finally, the question is, after all the facts have been unravelled today, will the SDP continue to harbour and support Dr Chee Soon Juan? Sir, I support the motion.”
“Mr Chiam has sought to give an explanation as to why Dr Chee cannot sue the University for the three months' notice but he has not given an explanation why Dr Chee does not want to sue the University for defamation. One can only conclude that the reason must be that Dr Chee knows the NUS is fully entitled and fully justified to use those strong words. What other conclusions can one arrive at? The final issue is: was the SDP right or wrong to espouse Dr Chee's case and to put political pressure on NUS? And the actions of the SDP, Sir, are wholly deplorable. I stood up to ask whether he still stands by his statement and, obviously, he does. They have turned a staff issue between NUS and one of its lecturers into a political issue. Dr Chee should have been advised by both Mr Ling and Mr Chiam, who are lawyers, that he has the proper remedy to sue for defamation. Mr Shanmugam pointed out that Mr Chiam has experience. He successfully brought defamation action and had gone on vacation on damages obtained in his suits against one or more PAP Members. But he forgot to mention that Mr Ling also has experience. Mr Ling was dismissed by the Police Force but he took legal action to challenge that dismissal and he succeeded. So both of them have personal experience in the exhaustion of remedies and the proper legal way to go about remedying a felt grievance. Sir, if Dr Chee had been a PAP MP, not only would the PAP not have interfered with the NUS decision but Mr Goh Chok Tong would have made sure that the CEC would have immediately stripped him from any post held in the PAP CEC. Sir, in Singapore, politicians who commit wrongs do not and cannot enjoy any special immunity from retribution. It is just not possible in our system.”
“I have never during my time come across a case of a staff member resorting to so many acts of deception and deviousness simply to avoid having to pay $226 and to admit that he had done wrong. Surely Dr Chee cannot expect to be let off leniently merely because he happens to have contested a by-election against the Prime Minister and is the Assistant Secretary-General of the SDP. If the NUS lets him off, will that not be a signal for people less than honest to join the SDP? Is it not a signal that institutions like the NUS will have to practise double standards? Next issue, Sir, was Dr Chee right or wrong in not seeking proper redress and turning this into a political issue? Dr Chee's "hunger strike" achieves nothing. Even if he fasts to death, how does that help him to clear his name? Nor can putting political pressure on the University after he establishes his honour. I agree with others that the only proper way for Dr Chee to vindicate himself is to sue the University if he considers that the University's allegations of dishonesty are totally unfounded and defamatory. The University's strong words against Dr Chee in respect of an academic staff member of his standing should have caused anyone in a similar position to have been thoroughly outraged at such description of his character and such a person would have immediately filed suit for defamation. He did not do so. But he launched a political attack on NUS. The question everyone is asking is why did he not go to the Courts to sue NUS for defamation. He gave no explanation and Mr Chiam, today, has not given an explanation.”
“When first confronted on 4th March, he conceded this point, but his only defence was: I expected the bills to be sent to me. As I said, he shifted his position later and claimed that he was justified because his wife's research was related to his own. But as NUS has pointed out, even if Mrs Chee's research had been related to Dr Chee's own work, it would still have been improper to use his own funds to pay for her postage. Dr Chee's claim that he was right to use the funds for his wife is really an amazing proposition. If he is right, then the logic of his argument must be that University's funds can be used for meals of his wife, for air travel to United States for purposes of her PhD examination, and a whole host of other conclusions. Secondly, when Dr Chee was investigated, was it proper for him to mislead the University as he did, backdating his letter, suppressing the facts, and so on? Obviously not. I would say all these acts of suppression and deviousness were graver misconduct than the misuse of $226. It called for further disciplinary action on the part of the University against Dr Chee. Next issue, was the University right or wrong to terminate Dr Chee's contract? Were they too harsh? I know that some people feel that Dr Chee may have been in the wrong, but the University might have acted too harshly against him. I think the University has in fact been very lenient to Dr Chee. It could have dismissed him outright at the very outset. The issue is not $226, but the dishonesty. You have heard the Minister for Education refer to other parallel cases. Sir, I have taught in the NUS for some 16 years and I was Dean of the Law Faculty for two consecutive terms.”
“And the six different itemisation of suppression of facts, shifting of ground, deviousness is totally in character with Dr Chee that we know. Sir, what are the issues here? The issue is not about $226, surely. The issue is about integrity and honesty. As the Minister for Education pointed out, integrity and honesty are important qualities in an academic institution, both for academic staff and for students, because lecturers set an example for students. We expect high standards of integrity not only in the university, but in all parts of the public service, and I would say, indeed, throughout Singapore society. For example, I think everyone knows that SAF officers who are caught shoplifting are cashiered, no matter how trivial the amount is. They are stripped of their officers' status, reduced to the rank of private, and discharged with ignominy. The SAF has cashiered officers who have been caught pilfering no more than a few dollars of merchandise. But this is absolutely necessary, though it may be unpleasant. The specific issues are: First, was what Dr Chee did, and his subsequent conduct when being investigated by the University, right or wrong? Second, was the University right or wrong to terminate Dr Chee's contract? Was the University too harsh? Third, was Dr Chee right or wrong to try to seek redress by turning this into a political issue? Fourth, was the SDP right or wrong to espouse Dr Chee's cause in the way they did and put political pressure on NUS? First issue, whether Dr Chee and his subsequent conduct was right or wrong. First, was Dr Chee right to use research funds to send his wife's PhD thesis by courier for purposes of her examination? The University's view was this was wrong.”
“Matthias Yao then pointed out that many private condominiums and commercial developments, including Mandarin Gardens and Raffles City, are on 99-year leases. Dr Chee then shifted, abandoned this leasehold argument, and made a new claim: the real problem with HDB flats was that they were subject to too many rules and restrictions. Matthias Yao came back and said many of these rules were to protect the flat owners themselves, and private flats were also subject to such rules. Instead of acknowledging this fact, Dr Chee then shifted his argument to accusing the PAP of indulging in the politics of make-believe. Then, in his letters on independent schools, Dr Chee claimed that these were only for the rich, because poor Singaporeans could not afford the high fees. Matthias Yao pointed out that the Government had undertaken to provide enough scholarships and bursaries for every child who qualified for admission to independent schools but needed the help, and asked Dr Chee to name any pupil who had to forgo a place in an independent school for lack of a scholarship or bursary. Dr Chee did not do so. Instead, he shifted to attacking the feeder school system. Matthias Yao came back, pointed out that feeder schools existed long before independent schools, and not all independent schools have feeder schools. He again asked Dr Chee to name anyone who had been denied a place. This time Dr Chee admitted that no one had been turned away, but claimed that this was because poor Singaporeans had been deterred from applying to independent schools in the first place. In other words, each time Dr Chee is cornered, he abandons his current position and launches a different attack.”
“You send a dissertation, it must be for examination. You ask any academic in the University. It does not necessarily follow. The point is that Dr Chee suppressed this. Because in his written explanation backdated to 4th March, this is what he said: "I feel I am justified in using the funds in my research accounts for mailing the completed dissertation to the University involved so that the results could be quickly reviewed and validated and subsequently incorporated in my own research." In other words, he never said that his wife's dissertation was sent for purposes of her PhD examination. It was for his purpose. It was only after he was confronted, according to Dr Vasoo, on 11th March, by the Director of Personnel, Dr Vasoo and the Dean, that he admitted it was for his wife's PhD examination. Number six: His claim that his wife's area of research was relevant to his own also was not true, because we have the opinions of Dr Elliot and Assoc. Prof. Ramadhar Singh. In other words, according to my count, six different acts of suppression and deviousness, and this does not include the tape recording and the transport claims mentioned by Dr Vasoo. But, Sir, this appears to be in character with Dr Chee. Dr Chee has shifted his ground each time the University caught him out on a false position. But it is consistent with him. In exactly the same way, in his exchange of letters with Matthias Yao in The Straits Times, the Forum page, over the last few months, he altered his claims each time his arguments were refuted. Let me take the example of Dr Chee's letter. First, on HDB home ownership. Dr Chee initially claimed that HDB flat owners do not really own their flats. Why? Because they are on 99-year leases, not freehold.”
“Number one: As I said, on 4th March, he maintained that he was waiting for the bills -- an admission that he had to pay. In fact, according to Mrs Janice Chen's note, he had personally instructed her to charge the expenditure to his research account. Number two: He then changed his story when he found out the amounts had already been charged to the research account, when Mrs Janice Chen, according to the note, reminded him that she had done so on his instructions. Number three: Instead of coming clean, it looks like he decided to cook up a story -- that it was justifiable to use University funds because his wife's research was related to his own, something which, according to the documents, he never said in his meeting with Dr Vasoo. Number four: He backdated his written explanation to 4th March. I was listening to Mr Chiam, and I heard Mr Chiam say that on 4th March he gave a written explanation on the same day. Same day means 4th March. But according to the documents distributed by Dr Vasoo, that is not so. Dr Vasoo received the backdated letter on 9th March and the Registrar's Office, Director of Personnel, according to the chop, received it on 10th March, five days later. Sir, that a University academic can backdate a letter and stoop to such dishonest moves is unbelievable. Such acts of deviousness and dishonesty, in my view, constitute graver misconduct than the improper use of the $226. But that is not all. Number five: Even in his backdated written explanation, he suppressed the material fact. And the material fact was he did not tell the University that the parcels were sent to Penn State for the purpose of his wife's PhD examination. Not one word about this! Mr Chiam says rather jokingly that, of course, it must be understood.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, after the Minister for Education had given his statement, Mr Chiam said, "Let us look at the facts and let us not be emotional." After the facts had been stated, and he also said that no facts had been adduced to show that Dr Chee was dishonest, I think, therefore, it is incumbent on me to restate some of the important points. Fact No. 1 is that when Dr Chee was first confronted on 4th March by Dr Vasoo and the Dean, he gave a clear admission (and these are in the notes which are approved by the Dean in the Annexes) that he was waiting for the bills to come to him to make payment. In other words, a clear admission that he should have paid for these bills, and that he should not have charged the University research funds. At no time, as I can see in the notes, did he say anything about the relevance of his wife's research. Therefore, I cannot understand, Sir, as Mr Shanmugam could not understand, why he did not go up to Dr Vasoo, or if he thought that Dr Vasoo was biased, go up to the Dean, and say, "Dr Vasoo (or the Dean), look, I have made a mistake. I fouled it up. The matter was wrongly charged. Sorry. Here's my cheque of $226 to reimburse the University." I have no doubt that the matter would not have reached this stage if he had done that which, I think, any honourable member of the academic staff should have done. But, no, not Dr Chee, who, according to Mr Chiam, is a very principled man. He did not do that. From the facts we have heard in this House, Dr Chee decided to make a complete turn-around and we then have a rather incredible tale of suppression of facts, misleading information, and deviousness in a most foolish attempt to wriggle out. And I was counting the number of such attempts to wriggle out of deception and misleading statements.”
“In that case, he should not ask of Dr Tan Cheng Bock what evidence is there that the SDP tried to turn this into a political issue. Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Speaker, Sir, in fact, if I may refer you to the Straits Times of 2nd April 1993. It is written quite clearly here, and I quote: 'The Singapore Democratic Party last night came out in full support of sacked University lecturer, Chee Soo Juan, to back his claim that his dismissal was politically motivated. And the statement was signed by party chief, Chiam See Tong.'”
“I understand, therefore, what Mr Chiam says is that he stands by the statement.”
“Does Mr Chiam also withdraw the statement he has made to the press that this action by the NUS is politically motivated and that this shows it is vindictive action on the part of the PAP?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. Sir, Mr Chiam asks: where is the evidence that the SDP is bringing pressure upon the University? In fact, my recollection is that the SDP issued a statement, apart from whatever they might have said about the hunger strike, that the NUS' actions were vindictive, it was vindictive action on the PAP Government, and asked the NUS to reinstate Dr Chee. I would like to ask him now: does the SDP no longer insist on that position or does it still stand by that statement? Because if he stands by that statement, that is the evidence of bringing pressure on the University.”
“I am afraid I do not have such data. It will ease the workload of the High Court to some extent but, as I mentioned, that is not the only objective. Does this mean that there will be no more need to appoint more High Court Judges? I do not think we should come to such a conclusion because the volume of work in the courts will always increase. If our economic growth is sustained, there will be more litigation and more cases will come up to the courts. And if we want to increase the extent to which we clear up the backlog, I am sure more Judges will be needed as time goes on. The Member referred to foreign Judges. I believe he was referring to a discussion which took place in this Chamber many years ago. I do not think the question really arises now as to whether foreign Judges have to be appointed. The main question is: can we get Judges from Singaporeans or permanent residents who are familiar with our system, our laws, our aspirations and our goals, in other words, people who are familiar not only with the jurisprudence but also the values which are embedded in our corpus of jurisprudence. If we can get these people to come forth and take up judicial appointments either as permanent High Court Judges or as Judicial Commissioners, and if the Chief Justice is able to get them and persuade them and they are appointed, then I think this question of foreign Judges does not arise. 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 Speaker in the Chair] Clauses 1 to 19 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 20 -”
“Sir, I wish to thank the Members who have spoken. Dr Arthur Beng did not raise any specific points that require an answer. Mr Ho Peng Kee raised several points. Of course, on the question of qualifying criterion for Magistrates exercising civil jurisdiction, I have no doubt that the Chief Justice will look into this. Magistrates are appointed from legal officers with one to five years' experience, as far as I know, and no legal officer who has not undergone some period of induction is likely to be appointed a Magistrate. Most civil cases in the Magistrate's Court are in fact decided on facts. There is usually very little argument on issues of law and much less difficult issues of law. As for the mentor system, I understand that there has, in fact, been in place in the Subordinate Courts a mentor system for some years and I believe it is working well. I also understand that there is also in place a programme for training and continuing legal education for junior officers. For example, last week, they participated in a seminar on "Probation of offenders". I was told that before that, they also attended a lecture on how to write judgments which was given by one of the more experienced judges, Mr L P Thean. But we must remember that the judiciary in both the High Court and the Subordinate Courts is actually quite small. I believe the Chief Justice is doing all that he can to ensure that our Magistrates and District Judges will have a sufficient knowledge of the law as well as communication skills and the factor of temperament referred to by Mr Ho Peng Kee. With all these skills, they would, in dispensing justice, inspire confidence in the lawyers and others appearing before them. Mr Chia Shi Teck asked for the percentage of the workload.”
“Clause 2 increases the monetary limit of a District Court from $50,000 to $100,000 generally, and from $250,000 to $3 million for grant of probate and administration actions. Clause 14 provides that these limits may be amended from time to time, up or down, by the President after consulting the Chief Justice. The President has to act on the advice of the Cabinet before making such order. Under the existing provisions, the Subordinate Courts Act has to be amended in order to vary the monetary limits. The enlarged civil jurisdiction will enable District Judges to acquire a broader range of experience and a more extensive knowledge of the law. Clause 21 increases the jurisdiction of a Magistrate's Court from $10,000 to $30,000. But there is no increase in the subject jurisdiction of a Magistrate's Court. Finally, Sir, clause 22 empowers a Subordinate Court to refer any constitutional issue arising in an action before it to the High Court for determination. This is only right because a Subordinate Court is not the appropriate forum to determine such an issue. Provision is made for the Attorney-General to be heard on any such issue. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill before the House seeks to amend the Subordinate Courts Act as part of a general plan to restructure the jurisdiction and powers of the courts in Singapore. Two other Bills have been approved by this House yesterday. This is the third Bill as part of the restructuring. Since certain provisions in this Bill are similar to the Bill approved yesterday to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, I will not be dealing with such provisions. The civil jurisdiction of the District Court is at present limited to the following matters: First, monetary claims not exceeding $50,000 founded on contract or tort or under any written law; second, action for the recovery of immovable property where title is not in dispute; third, proceedings for the grant of probate and administration acts; fourth, proceedings for distress of rent; and fifth, interpleader proceedings. Sir, the law applicable to these proceedings constitutes actually a very small part of the civil law in Singapore. Most of the disputes in the proceedings turn on the facts and hardly involve any points of law, leave alone complicated points of law. As a result, the civil work of a District Judge does not really prepare him for hearing civil disputes in the High Court if eventually he should be appointed a Judge of the High Court. Clauses 5 and 9 increase the civil jurisdiction of a District Court to include the following matters: First, non-monetary claims founded on contract or tort; second, actions for the recovery of immovable property even where title is in dispute; and third, certain equity proceedings.”
“Sir, the death which occurred in this accident referred to by the Member will be the subject matter of a Coroner's Inquiry, which is a public hearing. This will be held within the next few months. Traffic Police will place the results of their investigation before the Coroner's Court. I have been advised by the Attorney-General that a discussion of the case before the hearing may prejudice the Coroner's Inquiry. SUBORDINATE COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“(i) During the period from 1988 to 1992, 4 computer crime offenders were prosecuted. One of these cases is still awaiting trial. (ii) The 3 cases that had been dealt with by the courts are described as follows: Case 1: A bank teller misappropriated about $467,000 belonging to the bank and tampered with the accounting entries in the bank's computer system to conceal the offence. Case 2: A bank's computer system operator gained unauthorised access into the bank's computer system and fraudulently transfered over $9,000 to accounts of his friends. Case 3: An employee of a company, which acted as a registrar of public-listed companies, misused the company's computerised share registration system and created a share certificate with a value of over $13,000 in his own name. He pledged the share certificate with a finance company to secure a loan. In the 4th case which is pending, a bank's system analyst allegedly stole a password or used one assigned to him to unlawfully access the computerised lucky draw software programmes of the bank and amended them to enable 5 account holders whom he favoured to win prizes. (iii)In the 4 cases, the total amount involved was about $985,000. (iv) In all these cases, the accused were charged or being charged under the Penal Code. GRADUATE AND NON-GRADUATE TEACHER RESIGNATIONS FROM 1990 TO 1992 3. Dr Toh Keng Kiat asked the Minister for Education if he will state (i) the number of graduate and non-graduate teachers who resigned from 1990 to 1992, (ii) the average length of service of the teachers in each group and (iii) the number of new recruits for each group for the years 1990 to 1992.”
“Sir, if Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon's position is that where the law now does not provide for appeal, he disagrees and that, therefore, there should be another appeal, then that is a separate matter which he should pursue independently of this matter. This provision to which he makes an effort to amend does not talk about the right of appeal. It talks about reserving a point of law of public interest which is different from, say, appealing on the merits of the case. I have taken pains to explain the rationale of this provision. It is not to give so-called another shot. It is to clarify certain principles of law for future cases and, therefore, it is quite different from appealing on the merits of the case. Therefore, I must indicate my unwillingness to accept this amendment. Question accordingly negatived. New Clause (B) accordingly disagreed to. The Schedule -”
“I think it is not fair that the person who has been acquitted, and then convicted by the High Court, should not have a right, as opposed to a discretionary application, to go to the Court of Criminal Appeal, especially in the light of the fact when you are talking about civil cases where only money is involved, there is no problem and you can go to the Court of Appeal. But here we are talking about a person who might go to jail or might be caned. And I cannot help feeling that you might have a situation where the High Court Judge is wrong or he has an awful day, or for some reason, he has misapprehended the facts and there is no further avenue to check this. What I am suggesting really is to close the possibility that there may be miscarriage of justice. Judges try their best. We try and get the best men and women that we can, but they are human and they can make mistakes. I think that when a person's liberty is at stake, where he could be caned, there should at least be one more appeal.”
“That is why in every case where he applies to reserve a point of law of public interest for decision of the Court of Appeal, a judge must reserve that point of law. An accused person can also apply to reserve a point of law of public interest. But the judge has a discretion whether to allow that application. This discretion is necessary in order to sieve out questions which are not genuine points of law and are not of public interest and which are advanced merely as a guise for what is in fact an appeal. It is not the practice of the Public Prosecutor to ask for a reversal of a High Court's decision in every case where the Court of Criminal Appeal determines a point of law in his favour. A Public Prosecutor has to exercise the power responsibly and his concern in reserving a point of law of public interest is not so much to secure justice in the individual, the specific case, which is of course important, but, more importantly, to ensure that the principles of law are correctly and authoritatively decided for future cases. In fact, I think Assoc. Prof. Woon knows the celebrated case of insider trading, Public Prosecutor vs Chowdhurie 1981, which provides an example of a case to which the order of acquittal by the High Court was not disturbed at all, even though the Court of Criminal Appeal determined the questions of law reserved for its decision in favour of the prosecution. So that is the raison d'etre of applying for points of principles of law to be reserved. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Sir, I have very great respect for the Minister. He was my Dean and my teacher. But I am afraid here I do disagree with him.”
“Sir, this amendment is also not acceptable. Let me explain why. In fact, the only change proposed by Assoc. Prof. Woon, as I can see, to the existing law is in the new section 60(1A) (b). I think that is the real substantive change to it. Sir, at the present time, there is no appeal by either the Public Prosecutor or the accused to the Court of Criminal Appeal from a decision of the High Court in the exercise of its appellate criminal jurisdiction. His proposal has the effect of granting a right of appeal really in every case where the High Court has reversed an order of acquittal by the Subordinate Courts. That is the effect. He says that this is only fair because the Public Prosecutor has what he calls a "second shot" if the High Court rules against him. His argument assumes two things. First, he assumes that the Public Prosecutor will lodge an appeal from the High Court's decision under the guise of reserving a point of law. Secondly, he assumes that it is a practice of the Public Prosecutor to ask the Court of Appeal, where it determines the reserved point of law in his favour, to reverse the decision of a High Court, that is, to restore a conviction against the accused. Both his assumptions are erroneous. The general legislative policy must, of course, be that there is a finality of decisions. Therefore, the law provides that there should be no appeal from a decision of the High Court in its appellate criminal jurisdiction. This equally applies to the accused and the Public Prosecutor. However, in addition to the duty to ensure justice in individual cases, the Public Prosecutor has a further duty to ensure that the principles of law are correctly and authoritatively decided.”
“But if the High Court Judge declines, then that accused person is left without redress. I say the Act is unsatisfactory because it gives rise to the perception that the playing field is not quite level. The prosecution has far more of an opportunity to get you into jail than you do to get yourself out, as it were. Hence, the suggestion that section 60 be amended to give an accused the right to have a case stated to the Court of Criminal Appeal if the High Court Judge reverses his acquittal on appeal. He was acquitted at the Subordinate Courts, appealed to the High Court, the High Court Judge reverses that, he should have one further chance to go the Court of Criminal Appeal. Because we are talking about people who might go to jail, people who might be caned even, and there is also the stigma of being convicted of an offence. Question put, "That the New Clause (B) be read a Second time."”
“The Attorney-General can require a High Court Judge to state a case for the Court of Criminal Appeal. My concern really arises in this way. If you are prosecuted in the Subordinate Courts, let us say, the District Court, and you are acquitted, the Public Prosecutor may appeal to the High Court, and if the High Court acquits, the Public Prosecutor may require the High Court Judge to state a case for the Court of Criminal Appeal. So the Public Prosecutor has got two shots. If you are acquitted in the Subordinate Courts, and there is an appeal to the High Court, and the High Court convicts you on that appeal, in other words, they reverse the District Court Judge, the person whose acquittal has been changed into a conviction has got no right to go any further at all. Effectively, he has been convicted by only one Judge, that is, the High Court Judge, who will not have seen the witnesses because the witnesses would have been seen by the Subordinate Court's Judge. This may give rise to the perception that the system is not fair and it is very important for the integrity of the system that people do not feel that they have been given a raw deal. Let us say, you have a situation where someone is acquitted by a District Judge. The Public Prosecutor appeals to the High Court. The High Court Judge, without hearing the witnesses again, because this is the practice, changes the acquittal into a conviction, and this man then has no further recourse. As far as he is concerned, he might go to jail, his livelihood might be affected, but he has nothing further to say. He can request the High Court Judge to state a case. If the High Court Judge does state a case, the Court of Criminal Appeal can hear that case.”
“subordinate court in a criminal matter has been determined by the High Court, any party may apply to the Judge to reserve for the decision of the Court of Appeal any question of law of public interest which has arisen in the course of the appeal and the determination of which by the Judge has affected the event of the appeal. (1A) The Judge shall reserve the said question of law for the decision of the Court of Appeal- (a) where the application has been made by the Public Prosecutor; or (b) if the Judge has reversed the acquittal of a respondent, where the application has been made by the respondent. In any other case, the Judge shall have a discretion whether or not to reserve a question of law for the decision of the Court of Appeal.". Brought up, and read the First time. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time." This amendment that I have suggested again addresses an anomaly in our legal system. If you are prosecuted in Singapore, you can be prosecuted either in the Subordinate Courts or in the High Court. If you are prosecuted in the High Court and you are convicted, you have a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal and thence to the Privy Council. But this right, of course, has been restricted. If, on the other hand, you are prosecuted in the Subordinate Courts, either the Magistrate's Court or the District Court, you only have a right of appeal to the High Court and there it stops. The High Court Judge may state a case for the Court of Criminal Appeal to look at, but he does not have to. There is no rule that forces him to do this no matter how wrong he may have been in not stating a case. No one has got any power to force the High Court Judge to state the case, except the Attorney-General.”
“As long as Mah Kah Yew remains on the books, you have a situation, which is possible, that they will be bound. It would be far better if the Court of Appeal would do this. I am saying that if we have the opportunity, we should clarify the law. The Minister is of a different view. I respect his view. If he thinks that it is not necessary, then let us leave it to the Court of Appeal. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 16 to 30 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause (A) - Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Sir, in view of the Minister's answer to the previous query, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment*. I will not be putting this amendment to the House, but I will be moving New Clause (B), with your permission. *The amendment reads as follows: 'New Clause (A): "New Section The Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) 26A Bill is amended by inserting, immediately after section 26 thereof, the following section:-- "Appeals 26A. Where the High Court against exercises the power of revision High Courts to enhance a sentence passed by exercise of a subordinate court, any party power of aggrieved may appeal to the revision. Court of Appeal in accordance with the procedure prescribed for appeals from the High Court in the exercise of its original criminal jurisdiction.".".' New Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause (B) "Amendment 60.-(1) When an appeal from a decision of a of section 60.”
“Sir, I am afraid this amendment is also, in my view, not acceptable. This is what is referred to as a doctrine of stare decisis where courts, generally speaking, are bound to follow their own previous decisions as well as the decisions of the courts higher than the judicial hierarchy. The courts over the years have developed detailed rules as to stare decisis. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon's point is to change one such rule concerning the Court of Appeal which is not satisfactory, and he cited the case of Mah Kah Yew. But Mah Kah Yew's case is actually a decision of the High Court. The Court of Appeal is actually free to disagree with the rule in that case and, if it so desires, it can overrule it. Of course, one could say that such a situation will never present itself. But I should think that the newly constituted Court of Appeal, if it wishes to, can at any time change the existing rules of stare decisis, for example, the new Court of Appeal, if it wants to, can issue a statement of judicial practice to that effect. In fact, the House of Lords in the United Kingdom issued a practice statement in 1966 to declare, in a departure from its previous practice, that it would not be bound by its own decisions. When Malaysia abolished appeals to the Privy Council, Malaysia also did not legislate to change the rule of stare decisis. They were content to leave the matter to be decided by the courts by case law. In my view, it is best to leave the development of the law on this to the courts for themselves to evolve and they can at any time declare what the position is. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: I thank the Minister for his statement. The problem is that the Court may never have the chance to do this.”
“Sir, there are many things which the courts in the development of the law are dependent on practice and evolution of precedents and this is one of the areas. As Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon pointed out earlier, there is a background to the origins of this power of revision. It dates back to the days where there were non-professionals, non-lawyers, who were magistrates and judges. That taken together with the other amendment which this House has approved, that is, the Courts can look at the debates and proceedings of this House to ascertain the intention of the legislature, I think today's proceedings should not leave anyone any doubt as to what the intent of this amendment is. Amendment negatived.”
“I would also say that the amendment concerning revision is not acceptable because his amendment provides for an appeal only where the High Court has enhanced a sentence on revision, but not when it has reduced a sentence on revision. There is no reason why there should be such a distinction. Therefore, Sir, for those reasons, I would not be able to accept the amendment on his proposed new section 26A, which we will come to later. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that as a matter of practice the courts do not enhance sentences. I am concerned what happens if you do get a High Court Judge who does exercise this power. You have absolutely no control over him. I take his point that if you want to have an appeal against the power of revision, it should also be an appeal against the power of revision when the High Court reduces sentences. So that can be subject of an amendment. In principle, I am afraid that if you do get a situation where a High Court Judge does call up the record and does enhance the sentence, there is no further recourse even though the High Court Judge may have been mistaken in some way. This is why I propose this amendment. The Minister has said that as a matter of practice this never happens, but I wonder if he can assure us that this would never ever happen. This is the problem.”
“Sir, this first amendment is closely linked to another amendment, which is Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon's proposal to add a New Section 26A, also concerning revisionary jurisdiction. Therefore, the reasons that I am going to give for this amendment are identical to the other amendment to propose a new section 26A. Sir, this will enable me to avoid a repetition. Sir, I would say that these two amendments, ie, amendment No. 1 by Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon and his proposed new section 26A, cannot be agreed to for the following reasons. First of all, there is no need to provide for an appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of the High Court in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction. Revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court is, in practice, normally exercised in favour of the accused, not the prosecution. This has been the practice. In practice, the sentences are never enhanced on revision as opposed to appeal, except where the court below was unaware of a mandatory minimum sentence. The object of revision is not to enhance sentences, but to correct obvious mistakes of a court below, especially where appeals are not available. For example, where an accused has pleaded guilty without fully understanding the facts, the High Court may be asked by the accused to exercise its power of revision and set aside the conviction on a plea of guilty, since there was no appeal from such a conviction. The High Court does not, in practice, intervene on its own initiative in the sentences of a court below although it could do so in theory. It enhances sentences only upon appeal, either by the prosecution or by the accused. Therefore, the new section 26A as well as this amendment is, in my view, not necessary.”
“Do I understand, Sir, that I shall first speak on amendment No. 1 only.”