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 50 of 66.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what is the question before the House? The Question is whether we accept the motion of the Leader of the House to accept the Report. Then we must ask, "What is the Report proposing?" That is covered in page 24 because the Committee of Privileges has made two recommendations in paragraph 6.3. The first recommendation is: '(a) that Parliament find Mr Jeyaretnam guilty of the offence of abuse of privilege; (b) that Parliament impose upon him a fine of $1000 which is the maximum fine under the Act...'. These are the recommendations of the Committee of Privileges unanimously agreed to, and that is the issue before the House. Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I have said, I do not know whether or not the Minister was reading from the other Report. Which Report are we reading from?”
“" Again, if a Member wishes to voice his disagreement with a particular paragraph, he would claim a division on the Question, "That that paragraph stand part of the Report." I hope I have made myself clear.' Those are the Chairman's introductory remarks. Then the Chairman went through the Report, paragraph by paragraph, and it was unanimously accepted by the Members of the Committee and no Member, including the Member for Potong Pasir, sought a division on either paragraph or on the Report as a whole. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Leader of the House is surprised. I am also surprised that, after having indicated assent and had not called for a division in the Committee, the Member now here abstains.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can I be of some assistance? This Report, the draft Report of the Chairman, namely, the Speaker of the House, was made available to Members of the Committee of Privileges and they had it with them before the last meeting held on 19th January, which was a Monday. At that last meeting on Monday, 19th January, the Member for Potong Pasir was present. The Report of that meeting is set out in the last two pages of this volume (Parl. 3 of 1987), pages E12 and E13. If Members refer to it, they will find that the Member for Potong Pasir was present. And on page E13, the decision is that the Committee agreed and resolved that its Report be agreed to. I also have with me, Sir, the Official Report of the transcript of that meeting. I was a Member of the Committee and I recall (and the transcript bears out) - that the Chairman at the outset of the Committee meeting made it clear that there would not be a minority report and if any Member of the Committee wished to indicate disagreement with the Report or any paragraph of the Report, then the Member must call for a division. And I read from the transcript the words of the Chairman: 'I would like to inform Members that there is no minority report and that no Official Report of the proceedings of the Committee on the Report will be published. If any Member wishes to indicate his dissent in the Report or in a paragraph of the Report, the course for him to take would be to call for a division. For instance, if a Member is against the full Report, then he would call for a division on the Question, "That the Chairman's Report be read a Second time, paragraph by paragraph.”
“So in a sense all concerned with the trade and business have been put on notice and we can say that they are familiar with the provisions and, as I said, the various factors which I outlined will be taken into account as far as the prosecution is concerned. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe I have touched on the main points raised by hon. Members. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. PROPERTY TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.20 pm”
“He particularly was concerned with instances where 40 students in a lecture or smaller tutorial groups or choral groups or religious groups had more than five copies which are infringing copies. The answer to that is that the example that he gave about 10 students or 40 students, choral groups, would, from what he said, be clearly examples where they would have no problem in rebutting the presumption because they did not have it for sale. And if they were harassed or badgered, then I would suggest that they utilize the new section 200 which talks about groundless threats of legal proceedings. He asked me to consider the prosecution policy. Of course, it will not be possible for me to indicate for all cases what the prosecution policy will be. But for all other offences, I am sure the authorities involved in investigation and putting up the papers will take into account the circumstances of each case, which means taking into account the circumstances of the offender, the offence, whether it is the first time, whether he had previous records, the volume involved and the extenuating circumstances, if any. All the circumstances will be taken into account and this will vary from case to case. The Member for Bukit Timah, as well as the Member for Kaki Bukit, asked whether a specific grace period can be given. The answer to that really is that a grace period of not six months, but of more than two years, has in fact been given because the fact that this Bill was going to be enacted, its basic thrust, the essential provisions and objectives were publicized more than two years ago and the Second Reading was taken in the early part of 1986. The Select Committee took nearly six months to arrive at its conclusion.”
“If I may then turn to some of the specific points and requests for clarification. The Member for Chong Boon has made a constructive point about assistance or information and advice being given to some of the businesses who may be particularly adversely affected by the coming into operation of this law. My Ministry will take note of his point and liaise with the other departments to see what can be done to minimize the hardships and to give the necessary advice. The Member for Queenstown in his own inimitable way has found the Copyright Bill to be a useful platform to talk about a wide variety of things which have got nothing to do with copyright; from Aids virus to gold fish, to clocks whether they are digital or grandfather clocks. Well, he has to make his point. But in case anybody feels that the Copyright Bill has got anything to do with digital clocks or Aids virus, let me assure him that it has got nothing to do with any of these. When he raised the general question as to whether the copyright legislation is going to hinder the bright Singaporeans from engaging in reverse engineering - "reverse engineering" not in its derogatory sense - I would say that the answer given by the Member for Potong Pasir is correct, that this has got nothing to do with that and it does not impede and will not hinder such development in Singapore because a different branch of law, particularly the patent law, governs the subject matter which he is referring to. He also asked what happens to the businesses which have invested thousands of dollars. I think the point made by the Member for Chong Boon is probably a correct approach to be taken in those cases. The Member for Fengshan expressed concern with the presumption which is rebuttable in clause 136(7).”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank Members who spoke. I would say all the speakers in their comments have not raised any contentious issues and have indicated that they are in favour generally with the Bill as amended by the Select Committee. So my response need not be too lengthy. I will just make a few points. First of all, I should say something about the reason or reasons for the Bill. In the Second Reading speech that I made in May, I was candid enough to mention that the Bill would also remove a significant source of friction with our major trading partners, especially the United States. But it would be wrong if Members of the House felt that the only justification for this Bill is to take care of this concern with our major trading partners. As with all legislation, so too the copyright legislation must find its justification in our national interest. So the question is, does the new Copyright Bill serve our national interest? I would like to emphasize that it does, because with the passage of this Bill conditions are created which are advantageous for the development of our publishing industry, for the growth of our computer software industry, and for the development of Singapore as an information centre. With the passage of this Bill, one can expect investors would have greater incentives to come to Singapore than would have been the case if they felt that our copyright legislation would jeopardize their interests. And, of course, the other point which I have mentioned is the removal of the source of friction with our major trading partners. That is the context in which we must view the Copyright Bill - that it aids and serves our national interest in the long run on many fronts.”
“A prohibition on parallel imports may create a monopoly for the exclusive licensee. This in turn will encourage price-fixing arrangements and other restrictive trade practices which cannot be in our public interest. The approach taken by other countries in relation to parallel imports has been far from uniform which is understandable as this is attributable to the varying economic situations of different countries. Finally, the Select Committee also received numerous representations calling upon the Government to enter into copyright relations with certain countries or to join in some international copyright convention. The Government recognizes that the ramifications of copyright are world wide since intellectual creative activity and the arts are not confined to national boundaries. The Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, will enable the Government to establish copyright relations with other countries and will provide a standard of copyright protection that is compatible with that of the Universal Copyright Convention. Singapore will consider acceding to the UCC in the future. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Parallel imports, in the context of copyright legislation, refer to the import into one country of goods lawfully made or sold in another country by or with the consent of the copyright owner to such manufacture; in other words, legitimate reproductions. Some representors urged the Select Committee to ban parallel imports whereas others equally vigorously argued that parallel imports should be permitted. After hearing both sides, the Select Committee decided that the Bill should be amended to make it clear that parallel imports are not prohibited. Incidentally, Sir, the amendments which we have just adopted do not change this position. The Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, will prohibit only the importation of copies which are made in countries without copyright legislation without the consent of the copyright owner, copies made without the consent of the copyright owner under a statutory licence. The consent that we are talking about, Sir, is consent by the copyright owner to the manufacture in the other country, not to the importation by Singapore. If dealings in parallel imports are prohibited, consumers may be denied the opportunity to purchase a lower-priced but legitimate edition of a work merely because the edition originates from some other country. The Select Committee was particularly impressed by evidence presented to it of large price differentials of authorized editions of copyright materials, in particular books, originating from different countries. Further, any restriction on parallel imports will serve to benefit the exclusive licensee more than the copyright owner. In any case, the copyright owner would already have been paid royalties by the overseas manufacturer of the parallel import.”
“In particular, the Select Committee has made refinements to the "fair dealing" provisions for works in this Bill. Several new "fair dealing" provisions have been introduced in relation to the new categories of copyright-protected subject matter, namely, sound recordings, films, published edition, broadcasts and cable programmes. I also wish to draw your attention to clause 114 which makes it clear that home-taping of TV and Radio programmes does not amount to an infringement. Clauses 109, 110 and 111 are similar to the "fair dealing" provisions which are applicable to works. The new types of copyright-protected subject matter are commonplace features of everyday life and are used widely by the average citizen in the same manner as books and periodicals. It is only reasonable therefore to extend the concept of "fair dealing" in relation to works, to also cover legitimate uses of new categories of copyright- protected subject matter. Other amendments were also made by the Select Committee after taking into account the increasingly widespread use of audio-visual materials in libraries, archives and educational institutions. Clauses 112, 113 and 115 create exceptions to meet the needs of researchers, students and educationists. The copyright in artistic works which are not registrable under designs law has also been restricted where such works have been applied to the manufacture of functional objects. In such cases, the period of copyright protec- tion is limited to a maximum of 15 years from the date of first industrial application. Parallel imports Let me turn to the question of parallel imports. Sir, several representations to the Select Committee dealt with the question of parallel imports.”
“The Select Committee also amended the Bill to give our courts the power to take into account, when awarding costs in civil suits, any unreasonable challenges made by defendants to the presumptions as to the subsistence and ownership of copyright. On the other hand, a clause has been inserted (at the suggestion of the Law Society) to provide a remedy against groundless threats of legal proceedings. Possession for purpose of trade As I have emphasized before, possession per se of infringing copies is not an offence. As regards criminal sanctions, the Bill has, however, been amended to include two new offences. The first is an offence of being in possession of infringing copies of any category of works and other subject-matter for the purposes of trade having cause to know or knowing it to be such. A person who is in possession of five or more infringing copies is presumed to be in possession for the purposes of trade. But this is a presumption which is rebuttable. Let me add, however, that possession of infringing copies of sound recordings for purposes of trade is already an offence under Singapore's existing copyright laws and that this provision is not altogether alien to our legal system. The amendment also has precedent in other countries. The second new offence is that of unauthorized public performances of films, other than by a radio or television receiver, for private profit. Consumer interests Let me turn to consumer interests, Sir. The Select Committee has not overlooked consumer interests. Some of the amendments to the Bill take into account the interests of users of copyright materials. Since copyright law gives the author or creator a monopoly over the use of his work, it is essential if learning is not to be stifled that certain exemptions must be created.”
“I do not propose to go into all the provisions of the Bill because Members would have read the report of the Select Committee and also because we have had a fairly exhaustive debate during the Second Reading when the main principles were canvassed. I therefore intend to focus only on certain significant amendments of the Select Committee. Burden of proof First, I will take the question of burden of proof. Under the original provisions of the Bill, it was necessary for the prosecution or the plaintiff in criminal copyright proceedings or in secondary civil proceedings for copyright infringement, to establish that the accused or defendant knew that he was dealing with infringing copies. Establishing "guilty knowledge" can be an extremely major and costly obstacle for the prosecution or the plaintiff. The Select Committee recommends therefore that the requirement for "guilty knowledge" in criminal copyright offences or civil secondary infringements be made less stringent. Under the amended Bill, the burden of proof remains with the prosecution or the plaintiff, as the case may be, but the prosecution or the plaintiff need to show that the accused or the defendant ought to reasonably have known that he was dealing in infringing copies. Civil and criminal remedies Turning to civil and criminal remedies, amendments to the Bill are also made in relation to the civil and criminal remedies for copyright infringement. The Select Committee amended the Bill to abolish conversion damages and in substitution, gave the plaintiff a right to delivery-up of infringing copies and contrivances used for the manufacture of copies or equitable damages in lieu of delivery-up.”
“Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Sir, the Select Committee on this Bill received 34 written representations. They came from both copyright owners as well as consumers of copyright materials. Hon. Members can see from the Report of the Select Committee that the representations covered many aspects of copyright law. The representations received by the Select Committee show that the Bill was generally welcomed by copyright owners. However, they wanted certain amendments to extend and make more effective the protection available to them. Consumers, on the other hand, expressed fears that the new proposed copyright law might stifle research or deny adequate access to information. The Select Committee's approach was to bring about a balanced copyright environment. That is to say, to provide adequate protection to creative works and, at the same time, give due recognition to the consumer interest in the availability of creative works. In particular, the interest of our educationists and students was not to be ignored. The Select Committee also took into account the fast-changing technology and the need for a copyright regime which is responsive to technological change. In this regard, it took into account that outdated legislation will impede economic growth, particularly since our economy is increasingly service-oriented, with an increasingly important role for the creation, transmission and processing of information. Modern copyright legislation would also serve to attract investments, particularly in the field of computer software and information technology. The Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, is in accord with our objective of promoting Singapore as a regional research and development centre.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 156, line 28, at end, to add - "(2) Section 185(4) shall not apply in relation to sound recordings or cinematograph films first published before the commencement of this Act. (3) Section 185(5) shall not apply in relation to an edition published before the commencement of this Act.". The same reasons as I have mentioned for the two previous amendments apply. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 156, lines 26 and 27, to leave out ", first published, or to an edition published,". The same reasons apply. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 156, line 25, to leave out "(5)", and insert "(3)". The reason for this amendment is the same as that I gave for the amendment to clause 185. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 153, lines 17 and 24, to leave out "any part of the British dominions", and insert in each case "a country". The explanation is the same as I gave for clause 211. Amendment agreed to. Clause 219, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 235 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 148, lines 27 and 28 and 34, to leave out "any part of the British dominions", and insert in each case "a country". Sir, the amendments to clauses 211 and 219 are of a drafting nature. The amendments will substitute the use of the term "British dominion" in those clauses with a more neutral term "country". Amendment agreed to. Clause 211, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 219 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 131, lines 27 and 28 and 31, to leave out "that Part", and insert in each case "those Parts". It is a drafting amendment. Amendment agreed to.”
“Under the existing clause it is not altogether clear as to whether the international organizations to which the new law will apply will enjoy copyright protection in respect of subject matter which are their official publications or made under the direction and control of the organization. The amendments seek to clarify that subject matter are protected. The amendments are modelled upon sections 187 and 188 of the Australian Copyright Act, 1968. Consequential amendments have been made to clause 235 to make it clear that the protection accorded under this clause is not retrospective. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 130, line 30, to leave out from "original" to the end of line 26 in page 131, and insert - "work, or a sound recording or a cinematograph film is made by or under the direction or control of an international organisation to which this Act applies in such circumstances that copyright would not subsist in the work, sound recording or cinematograph film apart from this subsection - (a) copyright shall subsist in the work, sound recording or cinematograph film; (b) that copyright shall subsist so long as the work, sound recording or cinematograph film remains unpublished; and (c) the organisation shall, subject to Part X, be the owner of that copyright. (4) Where an original work, or a sound recording for a cinematograph film is first published by or under the directio, other than an edition that reproduces a previous edition of the same work or works, is published by, or under the direction or control of, an international organisation to which this Act applies in such circumstances that copyright would not, apart from this subsection, subsist in the edition immediately after the first publication of the edition - (a) copyright shall subsist in the edition; (b) that copyright shall subsist until the expiration of 25 years after the expiration of the calendar year in which the edition was first published; and (c) the organisation shall, subject to Part X, be the owner of that copyright.". Sir, the amendments to this clause as well as the amendment to clause 235 are related. The existing clause 185 is modelled on section 33 of the United Kingdom Copyright Act, 1956.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 99, after line 26, to insert - "(5) Subject to the regulations made under this Act, the Board may permit copies of a work, a cinematograph film or a sound recording that are liable to be seized and forfeited under this section to be delivered to the importer upon security being given to the satisfaction of the Board that the copies will be forthwith exported from Singapore." Sir, clause 142 is amended to give an extra power to the Trade Development Board to restrict the importation of infringing copies of works, films and sound recordings. In addition to the right to seize and forfeit the infringing copies, the Trade Development Board may order the re-export of the infringing copies from Singapore upon security being given to the Board. Such copies are therefore prevented from entry into the domestic market. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 99, line 9, to leave out "in the country in which the copy was made". The same reason applies in this amendment as well. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 99, line 7, to leave out "constituted an infringement", and insert "was carried out without the consent of the owner". The explanations which I gave for the amendment to clause 7 applies here also. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 97, lines 37 and 38, to leave out "such work or other subject-matter", and insert "any such infringing copy". This is also a drafting amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 138, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 142 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 97, line 13, to leave out "part", and insert "Part". This is a drafting amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 137, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 138 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 81, line 4, to leave out from "article" to the end of line 6, and insert "was carried out without the consent of the owner of the copyright.". Sir, here too the explanation I gave for the amendment to clause 7 applies. Amendment agreed to. Clause 105, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 137 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 80, line 32, to leave out from "article" to the end of line 34, and insert "was carried out without the consent of the owner of the copyright.". Sir, the reasons which I gave for the amendment to clause 7 applies for this amendment as well. Amendment agreed to. Clause 104, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 105 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 71, after line 3 to insert - "(6) The regulations made for the purposes of this section may make provision for determining the circumstances in which a design is, for the purposes of this section, to be deemed to be applied industrially.". Sir, the new subclause (6) to clause 74 seeks to provide for the making of regulations to define the term "industrially applied" used in that clause. Such an express power is necessary, and clause 74 (b) is similar to section 10(5) of the United Kingdom Copyright Act, 1956. Amendment agreed to. Clause 74, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 104 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 68, after line 4 to insert: "(4) In this section, "useful article" means an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. (5) For the purposes of this section, an article that is normally part of a useful article is considered a useful article.". Sir, the previous two explanations are equally relevant here. Amendment agreed to. Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 74 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 67, line 19, to leave out "object", and insert "article". The explanation I just gave for the first amendment applies. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 67, lines 17, 20 and 22, to leave out "object", and insert in each case "useful article". Sir, clause 70 is amended to make it clear that the exception to artistic copyright in this provision applies in respect of the making of functional objects. Clause 70 is intended to restrict the copyright protection accorded to drawings of functional objects by limiting the protection in terms of the three dimensional reproduction right to 15 years. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 39, line 1, to leave out from "article" to the end of line 2, and insert "was carried out without the consent of the owner of the copyright.". The same explanation given for the previous two amendments apply here. Amendment agreed to. Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 70 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 38, line 27, to leave out from "article" to the end of line 29, and insert "was carried out without the consent of the owner of the copyright.". Sir, the explanation which I just gave for the amendment to clause 7 applies here as well. Amendment agreed to. Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 33 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 18, line 16, to leave out from "which" to the end of line 17, and insert "was carried out without the consent of the owner of the copyright;". Sir, this amendment is also related to the amendments to clauses 32, 33, 104, 105 and 142. These clauses prohibit the importation into Singapore of certain types of articles for the purposes of trade. The clauses as they are presently drafted prohibit the importation for the purposes of trade of foreign articles if they are actually made in breach of the copyright laws of the country of manufacture. However, if they are made in a country where there is no adequate protection given to intellectual property, they may be technically legitimate reproductions in the country of manufacture and therefore may be freely imported into Singapore. Imports from countries which offer little or no copyright protection will undermine the interests of copyright owners in Singapore. Whilst we, Parliament, cannot stop the manufacture of these articles outside Singapore, we are in a position to stop them from coming into Singapore. The amendments also seek to extend the prohibition to the importation of copies under statutory licensing schemes in the country of manufacture which are not meant for export. Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 32 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the debate on the law was conducted and finished on 22nd September. The Member for Anson's question addressed to the Prime Minister and dealt with by the Acting Minister for Community Development was simple: in what way was the Time magazine statement an error of fact? This question has been answered. If he wants now to resurrect the legal argument, it is a separate question which we are fully prepared to defend.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. 5.00 pm PLIGHT OF CONVICTED PERSONS AFTER HAVING SERVED SENTENCES”
“But I take his point that we must not close our eyes to the various other incentives and other measures to encourage greater participation and back-up for the volunteers. His point is noted, and I am sure the SCDF will not fail to think of other measures in addition to the financial and monetary compensation. 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. ADJOURNMENT TO A DATE TO BE FIXED (Motion) Resolved, "That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed." - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“The first is clause 103(1)(a) which, again, we are very much influenced by models in other countries and I think this was based on comparable legislation in Queensland. His point was whether clause 103(1)(a) can be worked only upon order or direction of the Commissioner of Civil Defence. I take note of his concern but for all practical purposes it is going to be very difficult because in an actual emergency, especially one which is spread over a wide area, the Commissioner cannot be in many places at the same time. So there must be some delegation. With regard to his question as to whether volunteers can be given power to call upon individuals and direct them to do this and that, I am not sure whether (a) the volunteers would feel comfortable in being entrusted with such wide powers; (b) there would also be a problem of accountability. For the present, what we have done is to have a role for volunteers which augments the official powers given to the SCDF. The SCDF, as you know, consists of regular enlistees to the Force, reservists and, if you look at clause 5, members of the auxiliary units for which provision has been for the long run. Looking ahead it may be possible to think of a situation where, after we have made considerable headway with the volunteers, you can develop a core of volunteers who may want to sign up as auxiliary members and they then would have the jurisdiction and powers which the Act confers officially to carry out functions referred to in clauses 102 and 103. The Member for Bo Wen referred to clause 111. I think, upon reading of that provision, it does cover the situation that he referred to.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken, and I think all of them were supportive of the Bill which makes my task much easier. May I refer, first, to the Member for Tampines who is also the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Defence. I think his point was that about 34,000 reservists would be transferred to the Singapore Civil Defence Force shortly and I would like to assure him in response to his comments that they will be deployed in important tasks for the total defence of our country. The SCDF and the SAF, in fact, have been discussing how SAF reservists can be best deployed in civil defence. Many of them are, in fact, trained leaders and specialists and therefore the SCDF is badly in need of their services. I am therefore confident that SAF reservists will find their stint in the CD useful. In fact, many of the CD units have roles for which SAF reservist training will prove very relevant. Examples are leaders for our rescue forces, crane and heavy plant operators, medical auxiliaries and so on. I am sure that they will show the same commitment in civil defence as they have done in SAF. I have taken note of the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's point about getting new upgraded premises and I hope that at the appropriate time, when submission is made, he will give us the necessary support by speaking also to the Minister for Finance. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for Siglap for his comments and, in particular, his comments on clause 23 and clause 102. I might mention that, since he referred to clause 23, that provision is very similar to and based on section 17 of the SAF Act. The Member for Radin Mas raised two questions which require response.”
“They will also be compensated for personal injuries or loss of life as a result of participating in civil defence training or being engaged in civil defence measures under the authority of the Commissioner. Sir, the Bill also provides for fair and reasonable remuneration to any person who, in compliance with an order during a state of civil defence emergency or a state of emergency, renders assistance to SCDF to save lives in immediate danger. Any person who suffers loss of or damage to his property as a result of a member removing or breaking into his place in the cause of exercising the special powers during a state of civil defence emergency or a state of emergency will also be entitled to fair and reasonable compensation for the loss of or damage to his property. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is long overdue. It will put our civil defence organization and plans on a firm legal basis. May I say, in conclusion, that a comprehensive civil defence law in itself does not and cannot ensure total civil defence preparedness in responding to any emergencies. The cooperation of the people is fundamental to effective civil defence. And judging by the overwhelming public concern, public spiritedness and acts of assistance and cooperation shown during the Hotel New World disaster, I have every confidence that all Singaporeans will take civil defence seriously as it is an integral part of Total Defence. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“As most of these offences, including desertion, violence on a superior, assault on subordinates and so on are already to be found in the SAF Act 1972, I shall not discuss these provisions in detail. With regard to those Parts of the Act dealing with special powers during a state of civil defence emergency, Members will note that Part XII of the Act provides for civil defence officers to have the powers which are necessary to direct manpower and material resources to save lives or limit damage to property in an emergency. These powers can be exercised in two situations. First, when the Minister for Home Affairs under section 102 declares a state of civil defence emergency, if it appears to him that a civil defence emergency has occurred in any part or district of Singapore. A civil defence emergency is defined as any happening (whether or not because of an attack by an enemy or any war-like act) that causes loss of life or injury or destruction of or damage to property or which in any way endangers the safety of the public. Examples, of course, which will come to Members' minds would be major industrial accidents or collapse of high-rise buildings. The second situation is where a state of emergency is proclaimed by the President of the Republic pursuant to Article 150 of the Constitution. With regard to civil defence volunteers, Mr Speaker, Sir, they can play a vital role in civil defence as the Hotel New World rescue operations showed. But it is necessary to give volunteers some legal protection. Under the Bill, therefore, volunteers are protected from personal liability when acting in good faith under the order or instruction given by a member of SCDF whilst participating in any civil defence measures or whilst in training.”
“This is another important objective of the Bill. Although there is an existing Civil Defence Act (Chapter 228), that Act is also unsuitable. For example, it does not provide for the raising of a force of national servicemen and reservists for training and deployment, and its general provisions are inadequate for the nature of civil defence duties in war situations. Clearly then, there is a need for a comprehensive legislation to enable the civil defence force to carry out its duties efficiently and effectively in peacetime disasters as well as in war. With regard to the organization of the SCDF, the Bill provides for the SCDF to consist of public officers, national servicemen and persons who are recruited to serve as auxiliary members on a part-time basis. A word about the auxiliary members. These would be those who are formally recruited part-timers similar to the Volunteer Special Constabulary in the Police Force. They will have to serve the SCDF on a regular basis, be in uniform and be subjected to disciplinary rules. These auxiliary members will therefore be distinct from, and are not meant to replace, existing civil defence volunteers in the constituencies. The reason why we have made this provision is for long-term needs for auxiliary members so as to be comprehensive and to cater for future needs. Sir, the Bill also gives recognition to the concept of civil defence volunteers and also authorizes the conduct of exercises for the purpose of civil defence. A major part of the Bill is to provide for the discipline of members of the SCDF for service offences. The concept of service offences is designed to ensure that members observe a code of discipline and conduct befitting members of a uniformed organization.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the purpose of this Bill is to provide for the raising, maintenance and discipline of a civil defence force to be known as the "Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF)" which may exercise its functions and powers during a state of emergency or a state of civil defence emergency. It also provides for various civil defence preparations to be carried out during peacetime such as the conduct of civil defence training and exercises for the civilian population. Sir, why is this Bill needed? First of all, the existing legislation under which the SCDF operates, namely, the Vigilante Corps Act (Chapter 80), is inadequate and inappropriate. For example, there are no provisions for civil defence officers to exercise disciplinary powers over national servicemen and reservists. Instead, the present arrangement is for designated police officers to enforce discipline using the limited provisions of the Vigilante Corps Act. This Bill therefore provides civil defence officers with the appropriate disciplinary powers to make them more effective in their role as trainers and administrators of national servicemen and reservists. The second reason, Sir, is that existing legislation does not provide for the discharge of essential civil defence functions in emergencies. These will include the management of air-raid shelters, rescue, enforcement of blackout measures, provision and co-ordination of medical services, fire-fighting, emergency assistance in restoring and repairing indispensable public utilities and so on. To carry out these functions effectively, civil defence officers must have the legal powers to direct human and material resources to critical areas to save lives.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before we move on, can I give some information which I did not locate earlier? The relevant dates are as follows. On 25th August, Mr Hochstadt, Permanent Secretary (Law), wrote to the President of the Law Society forwarding a copy of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill and informing him that the Bill would be introduced in Parliament on the 25th. A second letter dated 15th September is a separate matter informing the Law Society of the intention to commit the Bill to Select Committee.”
“I am talking about a disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Committee or the Disciplinary Committee. It is because of that inadequacy that the amendment seeks to provide additional methods of review of the findings of the Disciplinary Committee.”
“I am now talking about what the Member for Anson said. If he now corrects the position to say that the applicant ---”
“And I pointed out that it is only when the applicant makes a formal complaint or application that the Chief Justice can step in.”
“Yes. The other point, Mr Speaker, Sir, is what the Member for Anson said, and which I claimed he was misleading and I still stand by it, is that in his speech he maintained that if the Chief Justice disagrees with the findings of the Disciplinary Committee or the Inquiry Committee, the Chief Justice can step in at any time. His thesis was everything is within the control of the Chief Justice.”
“You can check on it. But certainly not as late as 15th September.”