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 31 of 66.
“The previous backlog, I believe, could have been partially caused by, shall I say, a lackadaisical attitude of some lawyers (not all, some lawyers) on the need to expedite the disposal of cases. Now, when earlier than expected dates are thrust on them, of course, they have to make adjustments. They have to work harder to prepare cases for trial or to reach a settlement date with the other side. I believe most lawyers can make adjustments. If there are genuine problems, I have no doubt they will convey the feedback through the Law Society or through the Attorney-General's Office. Mr Heng Chiang Meng next raised the question as to which should have priority, whether it should be the setting up of a dedicated permanent Court of Appeal, notice of which has been given in the Bill which I introduced at the last sitting, or a Court of Commercial Appeal, along the lines of the UK Commercial Court. I understand the arguments for a specialised court. Most of the arguments turn on the UK model where the UK Commercial Court has been held as an example of a specialised court which has proved successful and which has been presented as a model for other countries. But I am afraid that the admiration and respect which the UK Commercial Court had does not necessarily continue to be so now. In fact, the new Lord Justice of England in December 1992 warned of serious delays in the United Kingdom Commercial Court caused by a shortage of High Court Judges, leading to a waiting period of almost three years. And he warned that the UK Commercial Court could lose its commercial work and also the invisible earnings of the United Kingdom arising from this. So the question is: Is the setting up of a dedicated commercial court the answer?”
“Sir, I thank Dr Arthur Beng and Mr Heng Chiang Meng. Dr Arthur Beng asked how have all the reforms and changes made in the judiciary affected the performance of the courts. To some extent, this has been answered by Mr Heng Chiang Meng. The serious problem which faced our courts was that of the very big backlog. I would say that one outstanding result of the reforms instituted by the Chief Justice has been a very radical reduction of the backlog. For example, during the period 1991-1992, the backlog of cases awaiting dates for hearing, excluding divorce cases, was reduced from 2,059 to 175 cases. That is a very telling figure. As you know, the reforms included improved case management system, a strict policy towards granting of adjournments, new rules of procedure, and the introduction of pre-trial conferences and the appointment of more Judicial Commissioners. As to the current status of waiting time for trials, let me give you some indicators in the High Court. For High Court cases, the waiting period has been reduced from five years to no more than six months. In the Court of Appeal, the waiting period has been reduced from more than two years to no more than four months. In the Court of Criminal Appeal, the waiting period is in the next month after the appeal records are ready. And for capital cases, it has been reduced from four years to no more than two years. This period for capital cases is expected to be reduced even further with the changes in the Bill that was passed by Parliament, I believe, two sittings ago. 1.15 pm I would confirm what Mr Heng Chiang Meng said that the position of Subordinate Courts has also improved in tandem. Can lawyers cope? Of course, when you have a major change like this, the lawyers will have to make adjustments.”
“589 - 592) Paper 2 - TAX CHANGES TO ATTRACT OFFSHORE ACTIVITIES TO SINGAPORE (Cols. 593 - 598) Paper 3 - OTHER FY93 TAX CHANGES AFFECTING INDIVIDUALS (Cols. 597 - 600) Appendix A - CHANGES IN CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO DUTIES (Cols. 601 - 604) Appendix B - REDUCTION IN PERSONAL INCOME TAX RATES WITH EFFECT FROM YA94 (Cols. 605 - 606) Appendices - HOUSEHOLDS EARNING BELOW $1,500 PER MONTH BY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING (NUMBER), STATUS OF HOUSEHOLDS EARNING LESS THAN $1,500 PER MONTH (Cols. 607 - 610) Appendix E - NET BENEFITS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF FLATS (Cols. 611 - 612) Appendix F - ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF FLATS (Cols. 613 - 618) Appendix G - TOTAL REVENUE LOSS TO GOVERNMENT OF OFFSETS (Cols. 619 - 620)”
“With regard to part (i) of the question, the only available figures are the number of applications for Certificates of No Criminal Convictions (CNCCs) issued by CID, and the number of Singaporeans who have renounced their citizenship. The statistics are given in the table below. As for part (ii), figures are not available because Singaporeans who have been abroad for extended periods need not necessarily have emigrated unless they have, at the same time, renounced their citizenship. When an ex-Singaporean returns to Singapore, he may not have come back for good but is on an Employment Pass or Social Visit Pass. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 _____________________________________________________________________________________ (i) Number of n.a. n.a. n.a. 2,014 3,825 4,707 3,052 2,528 1,978 1,848 Certificates of No Criminal Convictions (CNCCs) Issued to Singapore Citizens (ii) Number of 659 527 626 773 1,046 892 1,041 1,027 927 776 Singapore Citizenships Renounced _____________________________________________________________________________________ Note: CNCCs records prior to 1986 are not available. Charts 1 & 2 - Unit Business Cost of Manufacturing 1980-92, Singapore's Relative Unit Labour Cost Against The Other NIEs In Manufacturing, (1980=100) (Cols. 581 - 582) Profit Share of Nominal GDP 1980-92, Government Operating Revenue As A Proportion of GDP (Cols. 583 - 584) Table 1 - Government Revenue As Proportion of GDP (Cols. 585 - 586) Top Personal Tax Rates, Medical Benefits as Percentage of Total Remuneration in 325 Companies (Cols. 587 - 588) Paper 1 - TAX INCENTIVES TO PROMOTE AN EXTERNAL ECONOMY (Cols.”
“The number of persons granted permanent residence (PR) and the number of PRs granted citizenship during the period 1983 -1992 are given in rows (i) and (ii) respectively of the table below. The number of persons who gave up their PR status between 1987 and 1992 is in row (iii) of the table. (Information for the period before 1987 is not available.) As for part (iv) of the question, the Registrar of Citizens does not offer citizenship. Those who are eligible have to apply for citizenship. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ (i) Number of 7,158 7,325 5,824 4,973 6,988 8,823 13,203 22,875 21,713 22,982 Foreigners Granted Permanent Residence (ii) Number of 6,413 4,923 4,721 3,893 4,607 6,548 7,893 7,302 7,124 7,199 Foreigners Granted Singapore Citizenships (iii) Number of n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 227 457 491 407 398 416 Singapore Permanent Residence Renounced ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Note: Figures on Permanent Residence Renounced prior to 1987 are not available. EMIGRATED AND RETURNED SINGAPOREANS BETWEEN 1983 AND 1992 4. Mr Chia Shi Teck asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is (i) the number of Singaporeans who emigrated each year from 1983 to 1992 and (ii) the number that returned.”
“I am sure my colleague, the Minister for National Development, will look into it. Dr Soin raised the third limb of section 5. I do not think she should interpret it as enabling acquisition for matters other than for public interest or public projects, because that too would be used mainly for comprehensive development, as far as I understand. In fact, I do not think we have used that provision for many years. 3.00 pm 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. CIVIL LIST”
“But bear in mind what that means. It means more costly public projects and public development. Therefore, land acquisition policies and procedures that we have must ensure that the overall public interest and the interest of the majority must be taken into account and must promote housing, industrial, economic and other purposes. It must serve these interests efficiently, effectively, and not at a cost which will impede national development and not at an exorbitant cost. Mr Chiam See Tong has attacked the Land Acquisition Act and said that the Government has reaped huge profits and so on and so forth. And therefore it is something highly immoral, unfair, inequitable. If it was unfair and inequitable, would we have achieved a situation today where more than 90% of the people are housed in public housing? It would not have been possible if not for the Land Acquisition Act and the cost of those HDB flats would not be what they are if not for the mechanism and the criteria for compensation in the Act. He has said that some of the acquired lands are not bona fide and not genuine. That is a serious charge. He or others should bring up and challenge it in the courts if that is not so. He mentioned a specific case of a family being unfairly evicted. He must give us more details about this case so that it can be investigated. He has given the impression that out of the blue, HDB officers came and descended on them. He should let us know. Were they or were they not served with notices in advance? And did they comply with the notices? If they refused to comply with the notices, how many reminders were they given and so on and so forth? Let us get both sides of the story before presenting a picture of a draconian action by the authorities.”
“Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. First, for those Members who have asked for more regular intervals of updating, yes, this can be considered. I am sure they have noted that this latest updating is at a shorter interval than the previous updating, from 1973 to 1986. So, this is something that we can consider for the future. Other Members have talked about going market rate completely - Mr Walter Woon, Dr Soin, and to some extent, I guess, Mr Chiam. If I may make a general point, Sir, especially for those who have said, "We have probably acquired all the land that we have wanted to acquire. Most of the public projects are completed." The impression is given that it is hardly ever likely that we will acquire or need to acquire any more land. Can we be so absolutely sure? I cannot be sure. If I ask the Chief Planner whether he can tell me that there will never be a need to acquire land ever again, I am sure he cannot give me that assurance. And how can we tie future governments down? Let us not forget, when we talk about going market rate, that we are not in the United States or Australia where they have vast open tracts of land. Land in Singapore has been a special case, a special situation. It is a special situation and will always be a special situation. And very few other countries faced with this scarcity of land, with such high density of population have had so much success in public housing or industrialisation, port facilities or social and recreational facilities. And one of the important legal and social instruments which has enabled this Government to do this has been the Land Acquisition Act. It has been a crucial instrument of policy in achieving what has been achieved thus far. It may be the ideal to pay full compensation.”
“Sir, before I reply to the other points, with your permission, perhaps you might allow Mr Lim Hng Kiang to answer the point about the Local Government Integration Act (LGIA) because, I believe, it comes under the Ministry of National Development and he would be able to shed more light.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, compensation for land acquired before 30th November, 1987 was assessed at 30th November, 1973 value and land acquired on or after 30th November, 1987 was assessed at 1st January, 1986 values, or the market value at the date of Gazette Notification, whichever was the lower. Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Act to further revise and update the compensation for land acquired under the Act, namely, to pay market value as at 1st January, 1992 or the market value as at the date of Gazette Notification of the acquisition, whichever is lower. Compared with the current position where compensation is pegged to 1st January, 1986 values, this amendment will certainly improve the compensation award for lands which are acquired in the future. The amendment, therefore, is a recognition of the fact that land values have appreciated over the last few years. With the compensation awards being pegged at no higher than 1992 prices, the proposed amendment will address concerns that the Government should pay a fair compensation whenever lands are acquired compulsorily. So the Government will continue to review periodically the compensation for land acquired for public purposes as it has done so in the past. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“I think this is not to be done only in the form of explanatory statements, but it must be in the form of Second Reading and Third Reading speeches given in Parliament. I think I have touched on all his points. 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. SMOKING (CONTROL OF ADVERTISEMENTS AND SALE OF TOBACCO) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Now that we are allowed to look at the purpose, there is no need to cram everything into one sentence without a full-stop. I know the English themselves have not been successful in persuading their Parliamentary draftsmen to simplify their drafting. But it is my fervent hope that we at least can make some contribution to the clarity of the law in this area. Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will discuss with the Attorney-General's Chambers which of Mr Walter Woon's suggestions can be adopted. I welcome his offer for the Law Faculty's assistance wherever it can be of help. Indeed, I strongly favour a situation where the Law Faculty lecturers can get involved in collaboration with the Attorney-General's Chambers or the Ministry of Law. I think he knows that I always have encouraged the Law Faculty to collaborate with Attorney-General's Chambers or the Ministry of Law. Where I disagree with him is when he says that the intention of the Bill is not decided by the Ministers or Cabinet but by the officials. I do not know from which country's experience he has got that idea. But I can tell him that in this Government, in this Cabinet, the decisions and the intentions are made by Cabinet and the Ministers which compose the Cabinet. As for his other point about explanatory statements, this can be looked into. As for simplifying the language, draftsmanship is a skill that is not easily acquired and the number of people who have the skill in drafting is limited. We must, of course, look for a wider pool of draftsmen. Of course, the more the better. I take his point that with this approach to enable the courts to look at parliamentary materials, it becomes important to enunciate the intentions clearly.”
“Very often, the intention behind the Bill is not clear just from reading the explanatory statement or by perusing the Minister's speech in Parliament. Now that we are going to allow the courts officially to look at these things, may I suggest that perhaps the Minister might like to ask the Parliamentary draftsmen to expand on the explanatory notes in the Bills. Very often, we copy legislation from abroad, sometimes blindly, down to the mistakes. It would help to know the source of the legislation. It would also help to know where changes have been made and why these changes have been made. This kind of explanation in the Bill itself will not create that much extra work, but it would be of great assistance to the judge and to other people who have to interpret statutes to have the material on hand. My second suggestion is that we rely a lot upon Select Committees for technical Bills, but Select Committees are not necessarily the best way of looking at a technical Bill because of the way that they are structured. Very often again, we copy legislation from abroad. Legislation from abroad may have been preceded by reports done by a committee. For example, just looking at company law, there is the Jenkins Committee, and in insolvency, there is the Cork Committee. It might be useful when we seek to reform the law for greater use to be made of committees of lawyers from the Bar and from the Faculty of Law to prepare reports on proposed legislation so that it is quite clear what we are doing. I end with one last suggestion. The problem of ambiguity will be greatly alleviated if Parliamentary draftsmen could be directed to write in simple English instead of legalese.”
“In the United Kingdom, the House of Lords there, in a very recent decision known as Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart, made a significant departure from their traditional English practice of not referring to the use of Hansard, by allowing its use for the purpose of resolving an ambiguity or obscurity or avoiding an absurdity if such Parliamentary materials consist of clear statements by a Minister or promoter of the Bill. Sir, the amendment before the House also seeks to highlight the importance of adopting what is known as a purposive approach in the course of the Courts' interpretation of statutes in order to promote the underlying purpose behind the legislation. That is the main amendment. Apart from that, there are other amendments which seek to clarify the ambit of certain existing provisions in the Act for the avoidance of any doubt. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill. This is not something new. Many progressive judges have already been adopting a purposive approach towards the interpretation of statutes. It is nevertheless welcome. May I make some suggestions? If we are going to allow judges to look at parliamentary material, there are certain things that might helpfully be done in order to ease their burden. The first point I would like to make is that when a judge looks for a purposive approach, he is looking theoretically for the intention of Parliament. But in reality the intention of Parliament is a chimera. It is a mythical beast. In reality, it is the officials who advise the Minister and the Parliamentary draftsmen who draft the words.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Interpretation Act to enable the Courts to have recourse to the use of Ministerial statements made in Parliament when interpreting any statute in order to ascertain the intention of Parliament should the statute be ambiguous or obscure in its purpose or if a literal reading of the statute would lead to an absurdity. Traditionally, the Courts have not relied on the use of Parliamentary materials in interpretation of statutes. This may come as a surprise to Members of the House. But this is because of a number of reasons based either on constitutional objections or practical difficulties. But these objections can no longer be applicable today when the Courts are faced with a flood of ever increasing legislation of a complexity and variety not encountered before. If the Courts are to make well reasoned decisions, access to such information may well be crucial to its deliberations. The position with respect to our Singapore Courts appears to be unclear. There are conflicting local cases in relation to the use of explanatory statements attached to the Bills which is one type of Parliamentary material covered by the amendment. Unfortunately, no local cases have ruled directly on the issue of whether the Singapore Courts can resort to the use of Hansard as an aid to statutory interpretation.”
“Either they have continued to take such charges or they have not. If they have, they would or should have registered. If they have not, the amendment does not affect them. If they have, then the amendment declares that the charges are valid. If the banks have acted on the basis that that English case was the law, then they would not have accepted charges over cash deposit as security, in which case the amendment does not make their position worse. They can create such charges after the amendment. In any event, if any bank or lender is affected by the amendment, I guess he can apply to court for extension of time to register the charges. But I do not think this is necessary for the reasons I have given. As I said, the amendment was requested by the Association of Banks in Singapore as well as the MAS. I assume that they have considered the point. But in any case, before the Act comes into operation, there is time and to relieve Mr Shanmugam of any anxiety, I will ask the Minister for Finance to take another look at it, but there is no reason to hold up the passage of this legislation or to send it to Select Committee. 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. INTERPRETATION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 1.57 pm”
“Sir, it must be quite obvious to everyone that this is quite a technical area. I am not sure whether the non-lawyers know what is going on here. Mr Speaker, Sir, first, on the points raised by Mr Walter Woon. He asked if we also have in mind amendments to section 5. I agree with him that it is time that we removed the uncertainty as to the extent of applicability of English law to Singapore, especially in regard to statute law. Indeed, this is high on the law reform agenda of the Ministry of Law and the Attorney-General's Chambers. But we will have to carefully consider the approach. There are many approaches. For example, should we declare what are the statutes in England which will apply or should we re-enact them as part of the corpus of Singapore law and so on? But this is an important area and I hope to be able to bring up legislation in the course of this year. On the point raised by Mr Shanmugam, I will have to carefully consider what he has said and I note that Mr Davinder Singh disagrees. Sir, a consequence of the English decision was that it was not necessary to register particulars of the charge with the Registrar of Companies. Many banks continue to take such charges after that English case on the basis that the decision might be over-ruled or changed. Those who did naturally would have registered the particulars of the charge with the Registrar of Companies. Those banks which accepted the decision as correct would naturally not have taken any charges on cash deposits. They would have taken some other kind of security. They would also have taken letters of set-off which would entitle the banks to set-off the customer's indebtedness against such cash deposits. My reaction to Mr Shanmugam's point is that the amendment will not affect the rights of banks.”
“This amendment was requested by the Monetary Authority of Singapore on the advice of the Attorney-General and it is supported by the Association of Banks in Singapore. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill. In the light of the next Bill, the Interpretation (Amendment) Bill, may I thank the Minister for the clarification on the source of the legislation. May I say that it is a very useful thing if we are going to allow reference to Parliamentary debates that the Ministerial statement that precedes the Bill should give the source of the legislation as well as the rationale for the legislation. May I make just one other brief point? If it is desired to amend the Civil Law Act, may I suggest to the Minister that priority should be given to the amendment of section 5. For the information of hon. Members of this House, section 5 effects an importation of English law and it may come as a surprise to hon. Members that, although we claim to be a financial centre, much of our financial and commercial law is, in fact, English, so that if the Parliament of the United Kingdom in Westminster changes the law, let us say, on agency, on sale of goods, by that same token, the law in Singapore is changed. This situation is clearly anomalous given our independent status. I understand that steps are being taken to effect an amendment of section 5 and I can only hope the Minister can enlighten the House on what these steps are and when they will be taken.”
“Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Civil Law Act, Chapter 43, to clarify the common law position that banks can take charges over cash deposits received from their customers. Why is this amendment necessary? It is because some confusion has arisen in this area of the law due to an English case known as Re Charge Card Services Ltd [1986] which ruled that it was conceptually not possible for a bank to take a charge over its own debt, that is, a deposit received from its own customer which is regarded in law as a debt owing from the bank to a depositor. That decision was widely criticised in the United Kingdom, not least by bankers who were aggrieved that such an essential and well-established form of security had now been denied to them. Hong Kong, in June 1991, amended its law to clarify the Charge Card Services Ltd case. Our Bill is modelled on the Hong Kong Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation)(Amendment) Ordinance 1991. This amendment makes it clear that a person, say, A, can effectively create, in favour of another person, say, B, a legal or equitable charge or mortgage over a debt owed by B to A in order to secure a loan. For example, a customer of a bank can create a charge over his cash deposits, in favour of the bank for a loan transaction or an overdraft. In fact, this form of security is a routine transaction which is of immense importance in daily banking and business practice. The ruling in Re Charge Card Services Ltd case is an unnecessary impediment to the financial and business communities to arrange secured financing for business and development projects.”
“Of course, I do not agree because the Workers' Party, as I said, is free to organise rallies and meetings within stadiums or athletic centres. They can have a very big crowd. They can open it to the press. So how is that a denial of freedom of the press or freedom of information. The same requirement and the same considerations which I mentioned will also be applicable if an application was made by the PAP. 10-YEAR COMPULSORY EDUCATION SCHEME (Timing and mode of operation) 2. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for Education if he will give details of the timing and mode of operation of the 10-year scheme of compulsory education for every child in Singapore.”
“Sir, the Member can choose to describe it in whatever way he likes. But I can assure him that the Police will not change their attitude because it is that strict insistence on law and order that has prevented us from rendering ourselves into situations which other countries have where mayhem, chaos, riots, fisticuffs and so on take place on a regular basis.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I never said that. I thought I made it very clear. Political parties can have functions anywhere and any time. But if they are going to have functions where there are going to be speeches and these functions are organised by political parties, Police's preference and requirement is that they be held indoors or within stadiums or athletic centres. Police will not allow such political meetings to be held outdoors and close to residential estates.”
“Sir, I fail to understand the purport of the question. I have just mentioned some of the considerations that the Police have to take into account and one of the considerations is, of course, the congestion that can be created by people coming into the particular area, the displacement of car parks for residents in the area and the congestion that will be created after the dinner or the political meeting.”
“If Ministers have to carry all these bits of information, then they will not be able to do any work.”
“Sir, I think we can go on and on. I have answered the question which he had already asked.”
“I am not sure whether the Police have had any problems in past Democracy Day dinners. But their concern is the potential for trouble and that is the prime consideration for approving such sites.”
“Sir, these are professional decisions which the Police must make, taking into account various factors. A wayang may attract a certain kind of crowd but a meeting organised by a political party, whether the PAP or opposition parties, has different connotations. The Police's concern is not to stop such meetings organised by political parties. Where political parties want to organise a gathering with speeches it, in fact, becomes a political meeting. Police's concern is that if it is held outdoors, close to HDB residential areas, then there is potential for mischief and disorder because it is difficult to distinguish those who are genuine supporters and invited guests and those who are not and might be heckling and causing trouble. In fact, there have been instances where objects have been thrown down from HDB flats. So these are some considerations which the Police take into account. It is not good enough to say that that site was used for a wayang and therefore it must automatically be approved for political parties. There are various law and order considerations which the Police have to take into account.”
“Sir, a site for wayang is very different from a site for a political meeting organised by a political party. I think the difference must be very obvious to all and the potential for breaches of the peace, law and disorder are considerably different.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Police rejected the application because they considered the proposed venue, being a narrow strip of land between a major road and an HDB apartment block, was unsuitable for such a gathering organised by a political party. It was also too small to accommodate the 1,300 to 1,500 persons expected to attend it, and the available car parking facilities were insufficient. Subsequently, on 9th November 1992, the applicants proposed an alternative site which was approved.”
“We can have as many refinements of this Bill as possible. The important point is: if we agree that there should be a deterrence even for those who lend their vehicles, then we give this approach a trial and see how it works. The way in which such legislation is implemented, I do not think it will lead to injustices, but it will be an effective deterrent. We can have many permutations of putting the same point in different ways, but I think this drafting has been done with some care and let us give it a try. 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] Clause 1 -”
“I have taken his point. The question is one of approach. The approach that this Bill takes is that such offenders are so serious in the potential harm that they can cause to other road users that where a vehicle owner with full knowledge gives consent to a person whom he knows to be disqualified, you are more or less aiding and abetting. I think it amounts to that. Whatever other terminology may be used to describe it, that is what it amounts to. The question is: should such an aider or abettor be spared? He may know now because of this provision that he has got to be careful. But if there was no deterrence, then people would merrily continue to lend their vehicles even when they have knowledge. The point is if they have knowledge, then they should not do so.”
“I am sorry I missed that point. Yes, that was a consequential provision. It is not a new provision. It is already in the Act. I agree with Mr Ling that it may seem very odd to have such a provision with today's computerisation. The only reason that I have retained that provision - and if it is retained, penalties have to be rationalised - is that although we have computerisation, renewal notices for driving licences are sent in advance one and a half months to sometimes two and a half months ahead of the date of expiry. The Traffic Police tells me that although we have computerised our records, in some cases there is a short time lag, where the court's conviction, before it is computerised, there can be a few days' window and some drivers would take advantage of this, knowing that they are disqualified, to apply at the Post Office for a driving licence. So this is done with knowledge. Perhaps, as we improve, we do not need this provision, but it is to take care of a short time lag in our system where a person, having been disqualified, receives a notice and he can go during the short time lag to have it renewed. As I said, perhaps we can do away with the provision later on.”
“"Unknowingly?" Of course, I fully agree with him, and the court will not forfeit the vehicle.”
“But I would like to ask whether or not such an offender, say, for drunken driving, reckless and dangerous driving, third conviction, causes death or serious injury, is it not reasonable to equate him with a person who commits a violent or serious crime? I think it is perfectly justifiable. It is a proportionate and measured response. He says a person who causes death or serious injury might not be at fault for having caused the death or serious injury. In that case, I should think that the court will take that into consideration because this is not a mandatory penalty. If it can be shown to the court that he was drunk when driving but it was not his fault that he killed - I am not sure whether such a situation can arise, but if it does happen - I guess the court will take into account the totality of the facts of the case and the circumstances before it imposes such a penalty. Mr Ling How Dong made another point that for drunken driving, one can be disqualified for technical grounds. I tried to follow his reasoning but I am afraid somewhere along the line I lost it, because the provisions of sections 67 and 68 of the Act are quite clear as to the ingredients of the offence that go into drunken driving. And in any case, these enhanced penalties are not just for first timers but it is for repeat offenders. Sir, I believe I have answered Mr Robert Chua also because he had reservations over the forfeiture of vehicles. He said owners of vehicles who knowingly or unknowingly lent a vehicle should not be penalised. Obviously, we have a disagreement here because the approach in this Bill and the approach which I commend to the House is that where a person knowingly gave his vehicle to a person who has been disqualified, these provisions provided in the Bill should apply.”
“If you ask someone who has lost his loved one, a child or wife, and he has lost the loved one in a road traffic accident where the accident was caused by a drunken driver for whom it is a third timer, I think that bereaved parent has every right to ask this House why is it that we have not taken stiff penalties to have prevented this. In fact, those who have given me feedback that perhaps we should have provided for this earlier than the third offence may have a point, but certainly I do not think it is going that far to provide for caning. And if I may take this opportunity to link up with the points raised by Mr Ling How Doong when he says caning in our society should be reserved for criminal or quasi-criminal activities. I take the point of those that caning, while it is part of our criminal justice system, must not be lightly or indiscriminately applied in our legislation. But, as I said, is it lightly or frivolously applied here? I do not think so. It is a measured response to a recalcitrant offender, a third-timer for the same offence, appears before the court, has caused death or serious injury and the court will not automatically apply. The court has to consider the criterion in the legislation which is: '... the court is satisfied, by reason of his previous convictions or his antecedents, that it is expedient for the protection of the public or with the view to the prevention of further commission of such offence that a punishment in excess of that prescribed for such a conviction should be awarded,' So this is the criterion given to the court. Yes, Mr Ling may have a point that this should be reserved for violent crime.”
“The proposed section 43 (3B) says that the order for forfeiture should not be made by the court if the court is satisfied that "the person who has committed the offence had used the vehicle without the consent of the owner (that means he stole it, for example, or did not have his permission) or where he had used the vehicle with the consent of the owner, that owner had no knowledge of his disqualification." So if the court is satisfied that you, the owner, have no knowledge of his disqualification, even though you may have consented, the court will not make the order. It is sufficiently clear. We do not have to add extra verbiage to this, like "knowledge" or "explicit knowledge". It is not going to improve it. Either you have knowledge or you have no knowledge. So I think that safeguard is quite clear. I think the comments made about the provision on forfeiture answer Mr Zulkifli's point about forfeiture. He said he was less comfortable about the provision on caning and asked whether I could alleviate the anxiety that he has. What I can do is to recapitulate what is the situation for the caning provision. First of all, I want to stress that it is not mandatory. It is for the court. Secondly, to whom it will apply? Let us take, of the four categories, drunken driving. It is not going to apply to the offender who is convicted for drunken driving for the first time. It is not going to apply to him when he is convicted for the second time. In fact, some have asked me: why not apply it to the first time or the second time offence? But it is not going to apply to him for the second time offence. It is not even going to apply if he is convicted for the third time unless he has caused death or serious injury. Is that going too far? I am not sure it is going too far.”
“His question was: what about those coming from abroad who might have been disqualified in those countries? I will ask my Traffic Police to look into this. I presume that other countries have pretty much the same procedures like ours where, if you are disqualified, you have to surrender your licence. In other words, when he comes to Singapore, he would not have a driving licence, or in possession of a driving licence. If he were to fraudulently still possess a driving licence, his question was: can we liaise with the other countries? It can be done, but I think it is quite a major task for other countries to supply us with thousands of names. Since the number of foreign driver population is not that great, I am not sure whether that has to be done. But if the Traffic Police tells me that, yes, it is a pretty serious problem, I will certainly take the suggestion into consideration. Mr Kenneth Chen spoke on forfeiture. He was talking about a case where a person knew that the driver whom he was lending the car was disqualified but since there was a slip of the mind and so on, he wanted it to provide for a case where a person has "explicit knowledge", to use his words. I am not sure what is the difference between "knowledge" and "explicit knowledge". If you look at the provision, I think it is quite clear. There is a safeguard, if I may mention to the others who have expressed reservations.”
“What is important for the majority of motorists is to constantly keep up with campaigns, on road safety awareness, and on dos and don'ts of good driving on the roads. That will continue to be done. In fact, Traffic Police is poised to launch a major road courtesy campaign. Although the accident rates might have come down, I think what is sorely lacking in Singapore amongst drivers is consideration by one driver for the interests of other road users. The road bully situation is a good manifestation of lack of road courtesy among the driving public. Then he asked what about those who drive without driving licence, in other words, not those who have a driving licence and then were disqualified but those who may drive without a driving licence at all. The answer to his question is that that is already an offence under our Road Traffic Act. Perhaps the thrust of his question was whether such offenders should also be dealt with under the ambit of this new provision. My discussion with the Traffic Police shows that the number of those offenders who drive without driving licencei s not that many, and it does not pose such a serious problem as to include them. Also, my approach in the crafting of this Bill is to restrict it as narrowly as possible to the real serious offences. He asked about foreigners who commit offences here. Although there are foreigners who commit traffic offences here, the number is not that great because when foreigners come here, they know that the laws have to be complied with and that we are very strict. For example, when you catch a foreigner committing a moving offence, he is booked and he is, in fact, accompanied to either the Traffic Police headquarters or police station and he has to pay the penalty or fine.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members who have participated in the debate. I shall comment on the points in the order in which they were raised. Dr Arthur Beng asked two questions. One, whether a person who has been disqualified, is there a way of reminding him what is in store for him if he were to repeatedly commit the offence and, eventually, he is subject to these enhanced penalties. I think this is a good idea. Probably, it can be done when and after he is disqualified in the first round. I will ask my Traffic Police to look into this. Probably, when he is disqualified for the first time, some advisory note can be sent to him, just as is done with the case of demerit points. He has raised the question whether a person who has been disqualified ought not also be disqualified from owning a car. Of course, this raises a separate issue altogether on which there is already disagreement from one of our Parliamentary colleagues. I think this raises several more serious issues as to whether there should be a linkage between an offence which is related to the use of a car with the possessory or right of ownership of a vehicle. Our thinking, at this time, is that it is not necessary to do so. Mr Choo Wee Khiang asked, first, about a campaign. He wanted a mass media campaign on these new enhanced penalties so that each offender will be told. As I have mentioned that the majority of drivers in Singapore are not prone to such repeated offences, it may be that the publicity and advisory campaigns should be targeted at those who have committed the first offence because that is the trigger which would lead on to the second offence and the third offence.”
“Those are the major amendments, Sir. I should mention the consequential amendment to the penalty for driving whilst under suspension as a result of DIPS offences, and for driving whilst under immediate suspension pending a court trial. These are also enhanced. Such an offender will face a $5,000 maximum fine or a year's jail or both, if it is his first offence. A repeat offender will face a maximum fine of $10,000 or three years' jail or both. As with driving whilst under disqualification, this is also a problem area. Therefore, the enhanced penalty is aimed at deterring suspended licence holders from driving. Allow me to conclude, Sir, by saying that the vast majority of motorists in Singapore are law-abiding, and will not be affected by this Bill. On the contrary, they will be protected. It is aimed and tailored at a small group of what I have termed "unrepentant, incorrigible motorists" who need to be effectively deterred from endangering the lives of other law-abiding road users. Such repeat, chronic offenders obviously are not held back by the normal prescribed penalties. A vehicle in the hand of such an offender in fact becomes a potential weapon and can wreak death and destruction on our roads. The proposal in the Bill, therefore, is to give our courts the power, where appropriate, to impose the enhanced penalties and potential offenders would be put on notice that they cannot get off lightly if they repeatedly flout the law. Question proposed.”
“All six passengers had been completely flung out of a car which had crashed in a single vehicle accident. The Traffic Police investigations indicate that the likely driver had consumed alcohol. Repeat offenders of drunken driving must be dealt with severely. In fact, Members may recall that a few months ago the press reported a case of a drunken driver who was before the courts for his third offence of drunken driving. Therefore, the amendments we are introducing would empower the courts to impose a range of enhanced punishments on those offenders who are convicted for a third or subsequent time for committing these specified offences. According to the Traffic Police records, there have been 10 such chronic offenders who have been charged in court in the past two years. The range of punishments would include meting out to the repeat offender punishment not exceeding three times that which he would otherwise have been liable to for the first offence, subject of course to a maximum of 10 years' jail. In addition, if such repeat offender, that means the third or subsequent offender, while committing his third or more offence, causes serious injury or death, then the court will also be empowered to punish him with caning with not more than six strokes. Let me stress that these are not mandatory penalties. These are provisions which enable the court in the exercise of their discretion to impose them. The criterion is imposed in this Bill in the new section 67A. In other words, the court must be satisfied by reason of his previous convictions or antecedents, that it is expedient for the protection of the public or for the prevention of further commission of such offence. So the court will decide in the circumstances whether they should impose these enhanced penalties.”
“Then he commits that offence again. The Public Prosecutor is given the discretion to apply for an order for forfeiture in an appropriate case. The Court can order forfeiture only where the accused owns the vehicle or where the owner of the vehicle had allowed the accused to use it, knowing that he was disqualified from driving. The next feature of the Bill, Sir, is to empower the courts to impose a range of punishments on offenders who are convicted for a third or subsequent offence of the category that I have mentioned earlier. No sympathy should go to those who commit such offences on three or more occasions. This provision that I am referring to is not one which deals with those committing parking or other such offences. We are concerned with offences like driving whilst under disqualification or suspension, reckless or dangerous driving, causing death by reckless or dangerous driving and drunken driving. These offences rank high amongst the most serious offences. As mentioned earlier, drivers who drive whilst under disqualification, in our view, should be considered grossly irresponsible. This equally applies to those who drive whilst under suspension. Similarly, reckless or dangerous driving exposes innocent road users to danger and even to death, and must be dealt with firmly. Finally, drunken driving. Despite tougher measures taken in 1990, the problem of drunken driving still persists and continues to rear its ugly head. In 1991, a total of 10 persons died in drunken driving related accidents, an increase of nine over the previous year. Another 71 were injured, four seriously. Members might recall that only some weeks ago in November 1992, five persons died and one was injured in a rather horrific 2.30 am accident along Nicoll Highway.”
“Sir, we should be strict with such a repeat offender because, firstly, he has committed an offence which is sufficiently serious that it was not compoundable and he had to appear and be prosecuted in the courts. Secondly, he was convicted and the court, apart from imposing any other sentence, also decided to impose a disqualification order on him. In short, the court was telling him that he should not be on the roads for whatever period the court decides. Thirdly, the offender blatantly ignores the court's injunction against him and continues to drive on the roads. And fourthly, this repeat offender, after being sentenced for driving while under disqualification, commits the offence yet again, and in some cases, and again. At present, such an offender who drives whilst under disqualification only faces a maximum punishment of up to six months' jail or a $1,000 fine or both. This is clearly inadequate. In fact, as the Chief Justice commented in August last year on the notorious case of a person having nine previous convictions, the punishments in the law for those who drive while banned from so doing are far from adequate. Sir, we should confer more powers on the courts to deter such offenders. This is exactly what this Bill seeks to do. The amendment increases the maximum penalty to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both. A new provision would also allow the court to forfeit the vehicle of an offender who has committed a second or subsequent offence of driving whilst under disqualification. Here we are dealing with a driver who has committed an offence for which he has appeared before the court and has been disqualified; then he flouts the court order and he is convicted for driving whilst under disqualification.”
“Secondly, to empower the courts to impose a range of punishments on offenders who are convicted for a third or subsequent offence of driving whilst under disqualification or suspension, of reckless or dangerous driving, of causing death by reckless or dangerous driving and of drunken driving. Let me take the first amendment. There have been a number of cases, Sir, where motorists who are disqualified by the courts from driving for committing a serious offence, have deliberately ignored the court's prohibition and continued to drive. Between January 1990 and September 1992, the Traffic Police detected a total of 228 such offenders, of which three have been previously convicted twice or more for driving whilst under disqualification. For two of the three, it was their third offence. In one particularly bad case, it was his ninth offence. According to the Traffic Police, there are more such offenders, but it is not easy to catch them. The Traffic Police can detect them only when they are stopped for some traffic offence or when they are involved in an accident. I hope Members will agree that such a driver is really a menace to all other road users. He is, in fact, a lethal, unguided missile. Moreover, when he causes an accident, the victims will not legally be covered by insurance. Of course, there is an agreement between the Ministry of Finance and the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Singapore where the Bureau will consider paying any unsatisfied judgment against an uninsured driver. Each insurer will meet the liability if there is an insurance policy in force even if the driver is disqualified from driving. But the point is that, in law, the victims are not legally covered.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." By way of introduction, may I say that the general situation on vehicle accident rates is satisfactory. We have a vehicle population of 556,028, more than half a million, and nearly a million people licensed to drive or ride various kinds of vehicles, 954,354 to be exact. Despite this tremendous increase in vehicle population and vehicle use, the accident rate has been contained. In fact, casualty rates, whether fatalities or serious injuries, have come down over the years. I think this is due to two factors: greater public awareness and education of road safety and, secondly, strict enforcement of our laws. We are, however, concerned over a small group of incorrigible, habitual, high-risk drivers who show blatant disregard of the law and of the courts, despite repeated prosecutions and convictions. They are undeterred by the punishments presently prescribed by law. The amendments before the House today are targeted only at this small group of recalcitrant offenders, specifically at those who repeatedly drive whilst under disqualification or suspension, those who are repeat drunken driving offenders and those who are repeat reckless or dangerous driving offenders. The objectives of the Bill are as follows: firstly, to enhance the punishment for driving a motor vehicle whilst under disqualification. Here I am talking of disqualification by the courts. In this connection, the Bill also seeks to empower the courts, for second and subsequent convictions, to order forfeiture of the vehicle used in the commission of the offence.”
“So whether in our place it is worthwhile or justifiable to have a parallel system of education, training, disciplining of a new breed of practitioners, is something we need to consider very carefully, although there is no objection in principle to non-lawyers doing conveyancing On the two points raised by Mr Heng Chiang Meng, I think it may be best if we leave to the Select Committee to examine these points in further detail. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. - [Prof. Jayakumar]. PEOPLE'S ASSOCIATION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 1.58 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the three speakers for their expression of support for the Bill. With regard to Mr Chiam's comments, I take his point that it will be beneficial for all the Government departments which have dealings in land to have a computerised system. In fact, this is well in hand, and I am not sure whether he is aware that a full briefing was given to members of the legal profession on the computerisation which links up all the information on land. But in case he has missed it, I would ask my Registrar of Land Titles to give him more information because it is one of the most advanced features of our computerisation system. And in fact, the intention is that practitioners can have access to it on-line from their law offices. What he is asking for has, in fact, been done. I note what he has said about the experience in Sweden and elsewhere on non-legal practitioners doing conveyancing work. In fact, Dr Wang Kai Yuen had asked me this question not so long ago and I explained to him why we are proceeding with caution on that. It is not to protect the vested interests of lawyers but we have found out when we went into it in detail that in England, for example, having set up the system of licensed practitioners to do conveyancing, they have had to set up a parallel system of training, educating such licensed conveyancing practitioners and the whole system for investigation of disciplinary offences, disciplining them and so on.”
“The advantage of this amendment is that it will facilitate title searches by lawyers and conversion of land by the Registrar of Titles from the common law system to the land titles system. Next, caveats. A caveat is lodged by a person claiming an estate or interest in land, for example, a purchaser or a mortgagee. Under the present law, a caveat has a life span of five years after which it will lapse. As some large developments take more than five years before the purchaser is able to obtain legal title to his unit, this amendment provides that the life of a caveat may be extended for consecutive periods of five years. To protect buyers and mortgagees of units in large developments where legal completion takes more than five years, the Registrar has in fact been accepting for notification, extensions of caveats. But in 1989 the High Court in a particular case called United Overseas Finance Ltd v. Mutu Jeras cast doubt on the validity of this practice. The Bill therefore regularises the position of a large number of caveats which have been so extended by the Registrar before the commencement of the Bill. Sir, the Bill requires a purchaser lodging a caveat to state in the caveat the date of his contract or the date when he exercised his option to buy the property, and the purchase price. These particulars are required for the Ministry of National Development to compile the Property Price Index. Sir, as I said at the beginning, there are many other provisions which are fairly complex and technical which I will not take this House through and, as I said, I intend to submit this Bill to a Select Committee so that others, particularly experts amongst the legal profession, may have the opportunity to comment on the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“At present, the Registrar can convert land from the common law to the land titles system only in three situations when, firstly, the land owner makes a Primary Application; secondly, when planning permission for development or subdivision of the land is given; and thirdly, when a deed for valuable consideration is filed at the Registry of Deeds. The Bill enables the Registrar to initiate conversion of land by examining the Register of Deeds and selecting lands for conversion. Conversion of all lands, let me add, will enable all land records to be computerised. The Bill also enables the Registrar to convert leasehold land under the common law system which has an unexpired term of not less than 10 years. This has been reduced to 10 years from the previous periods of 30 years and 21 years. Let me now touch on the amendment dealing with qualified and unqualified titles to registered land. Sir, under the present law, a qualified certificate of title will become unqualified five years after the date of issue of a qualified certificate of title and when a purchaser applies to cancel the caution as to title. The Bill shortens this period. A qualified certificate of title will automatically become unqualified in favour of a purchaser five years from the date of the last conveyance which was cancelled by the Registry when creating the qualified certificate of title. Next, the period for investigation of title. The period for title searches specified under the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act will be reduced from 30 to 15 years. The period concerning matters set out in the recitals, statements and descriptions of facts, will be reduced from 20 to 12 years.”
“Of course, no co-owner needs to use this procedure if he does not wish to sever the joint tenancy. The amendment does not affect adversely the beneficial interests of co-owners in the property. Joint tenants in law may have unequal beneficial interests. The reason is that the law distinguishes between the legal title and the equitable title. What counts in the eyes of the law is the equitable title which gives the right of beneficial enjoyment of the property. This amendment, of course, will also apply to HDB flats. The amendment, let me stress, will not affect the rights of the court under the Women's Charter in ordering in a domestic situation the division of the assets of the parties acquired by them during the marriage by their joint efforts. Sir, this amendment is in the public interest. In fact, in England, the law was changed as long ago as in 1925 to allow a co-owner to sever a joint tenancy by a simple unilateral notice in writing. The amendment enabled co-owners to have full dispositive powers over their interest in property by this simple procedure. What our amendment seeks to do is to give property owners in Singapore the same rights that joint tenants have in the United Kingdom. Next, let me speak about the amendment on conversion of lands from the common law or the old system to the land titles or the new system of registration. Sir, there are now two systems of land registration, the common law system under the Registration of Deeds Act and the land titles system under the Land Titles Act. The land titles system of course provides for a clearer and simpler land-register for members of the public.”