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 56 of 66.
“I think the Member for Potong Pasir had better listen instead of interjecting, so that he will know what is going on. The Member for Anson asked me if I had received complaints. I have told him that not only the Member for Telok Blangah has received complaints, but I also have received complaints. And it does not matter whether there were 10, 20 or 30 complaints. The point is that the Member for Anson has totally disregarded of the religious sensitivities of those involved.”
“The point is that the political party does not consider it improper or irresponsible to indulge in political propaganda and in the selling of political publications on what is a solemn religious occasion, thus ignoring the sensitivities of those involved in the procession.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the guilty party has risen to make the confession. The Member for Anson has failed to note the most important point. It is not how many copies of the publication were sold.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I too received several complaints from outraged devotees that the leader of a political party, not the PAP, and his followers were at strategic points in the morning and in the evening of Thaipusam, along the route of the procession, to sell their political pamphlets or newspapers to members of the procession, including those accompanying the Kavadi carriers. The Member for Telok Blangah asked me what is my view of this. Well, it is certainly both irresponsible and despicable because it shows scant regard for what is a solemn religious occasion. It also has the potential for mischief, misunderstanding and disorder when a political party distributes or sells political broadsheets and pamphlets during a solemn religious occasion in a public place. Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, responding to this question from the Member for Telok Blangah, may I ask the Minister how many complaints he had received from these devotees? Would he disclose the number of the complaints that have been received? Secondly, was he aware that the sale was to those who were standing along the sides, not to the devotees? Thirdly, is he aware or has he been told that there was a tremendous sale of the paper? Does he know that? Coming to my question, would the Minister appreciate that the question is directed to the playing of religious music, not to pop music or to any other music, but to the playing of religious music? And may I know what is the objection to religious music being played along the route accompany the Kavadi carriers? Secondly, have there been complaints from anybody about the playing of religious music along the route?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Police did not forbid the playing of religious music and singing of religious songs at the temples during Thaipusam. Religious music was played and religious songs were sung at the temples. Also, the singing of religious Kavadi songs and hymns by those accompanying the Kavadi carriers was not prohibited. Sir, the Police have disallowed the playing of music to accompany all religious processions on public roads since 1973. The experience of the Police was that the playing of music en route slowed down the pace of the procession and caused serious traffic congestion. Moreover, there have been complaints by devotees that some persons accompanying Kavadi carriers were making a mockery of this solemn religious occasion by playing bonggos, cymbals, drums and even dustbin covers, plastic pails and metal containers.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have not changed the approach of the law here. What we have done is to include certain offences of the Common Gaming Houses Act and the Betting Act in the scope of the Schedule. And if one looks at the Schedule, it already includes some of the offences of the Common Gaming Houses Act. The approach of the law has not been changed. The law, in fact, has not been changed except to incorporate. And we have to do this because what will happen and what is happening now is that operators of illegal mini-turf clubs are using and will continue to use with increasing frequency vehicles for their purposes. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee. 6.26 pm [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 -”
“Let the Member come out clearly with his arguments. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the other point mentioned by the Member for Anson, let me assure hon. Members that although section 4(1) of the Road Vehicles (Special Powers) Act provides for forfeiture of road vehicles, there are safeguards in the law which prevent arbitrary exercise of the power. For example, first, the court must be satisfied that the vehicle has been used in the commission of a scheduled offence, or that the scheduled offence has been committed in respect of any article or any person found in such vehicle. If the court is not satisfied with these matters, no order for forfeiture can be made. Secondly, although the court may be satisfied that the vehicle has been used in the commission of a scheduled offence, or that the scheduled offence has been committed in respect of any article, or any person found in such vehicle, it cannot independently make an order for forfeiture of the vehicle. Order for the forfeiture can only be made by the court if the Attorney-General has first made a written application for the order. In this regard, the Attorney-General will consider available evidence and other relevant matters (in reply to a point made by the Member for Anson), for example, in the case of a stolen vehicle, where the owner of the vehicle has knowledge of the commission of the scheduled offences, and so on. These matters and the matter mentioned by the Member for Anson will be given careful consideration before an application for forfeiture is made.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir has not come out clearly with his arguments. Does he want strong action to be taken against illegal mini-turf clubs and all the nefarious activities that I mentioned? Is he for? Or is he against? He seems to waffle. He was silent on the Common Gaming Houses Bill and all of a sudden realized he had better speak. Perhaps I should let him know that, in Potong Pasir, more than 60 complaints and reports have come from his residents. What is his answer to his residents?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. What has this got to do with the Road Vehicles (Special Powers) Bill when we discuss the general principles under the Betting Bill and the Common Gaming Houses Bill?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Vehicles are used by bookmakers and their agents as a means of transport in their illegal activities. Telephones installed in vehicles have also been used to place bets and to relay race results. It is therefore proposed to amend the Road Vehicles (Special Powers) Act to provide for the forfeiture of vehicles used for illegal gambling activities. Clause 2 of the Bill provides for some of the offences under the Betting Act and the Common Gaming Houses Act such as bookmaking, running a common gaming house, a common betting house, or running an illegal public lottery, to be included in the Schedule to this Act. If any vehicle is found to have been used in or for unlawful gambling, on application by the Attorney-General, a magistrate shall order that the vehicle be forfeited whether or not any person has been convicted of any offence under the gambling laws. The opportunity is also taken to update paragraph 1(c) of the Schedule. The Dangerous Drugs Ordinance has been repealed and replaced by the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1973. Sections 5 and 6(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act are the corresponding provisions of Sections 4(2), 6, 9 and 12 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Whampoa raised a question as to whether the enhanced penalties would lead to a situation where police officers may be bribed. I think I can give him the assurance that, as a Minister as well as the Government, we take a very serious view of any form of bribery of any public servant and he will know, as well as the Members of the House will know, that the Government has never tolerated this at any level, whether under this law or any other existing law or whether under the proposed changes to the law, adequate steps will be taken, guidelines will be given and operational procedures will be taken to ensure that this risk is kept to an absolute minimum. And if it ever happens, of course, stern action will be taken. The Member for Jalan Kayu has raised a question but I think I have covered it in my opening speech that the main thrust of this is against the illegal operators, ie, managers of gambling establishments. The Member for Anson asked that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. I have already touched on this point. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.- [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 -”
“Currently, if a police officer is obstructed whilst trying to gain admittance to a place or if gaming implements are discovered therein, or if people are observed escaping from a place on entry of the Police, it is presumed that the place is a common gaming house. However, under the amended section 15, a place will be presumed to be a common gaming house if gaming implements are discovered therein and any person found in such place or escaping from it shall be presumed to be gaming therein. However, obstructing a police officer is now treated as a separate offence. Clause 9 of the Bill gives the District and Magistrates Courts the jurisdiction to hear and determine all proceedings under the Act and to impose the full penalties as provided in the amended Act. The other amendments are basically drafting changes. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In my earlier speech I have spoken at length on the problem generally and therefore I would not be repetitious but say that, as a consequence of the amendments to the Betting Act, amendments to the Common Gaming Houses Act are also necessary to bring the penalties into line. Otherwise, the suppression of mini-turf club activities might also see a surge in the offences covered under this Act. The penalties under the Act are also more than 25 years old and are totally inadequate to serve as a deterrent. Clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill enhance the penalties for those involved in operating or financing common gaming houses. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill provide for enhanced penalties for the offences of gaming in a common gaming house, gaming in public, etc, which will carry fines of up to a maximum of $5,000 or imprisonment up to six months. The main culprits in illegal gambling are those who assist in the carrying on of an illegal public lottery or allow any public place to be used for gaming or promote gaming in public. Clauses 3 and 6 of the Bill enhance the penalties particularly for these offences. The punters themselves will not face mandatory imprisonment upon conviction. Clauses 5 and 6(a) repeal and amend respectively sections 6 and 7(2) of the Act which deal with punters - punters gaming in a common gaming house or gaming in public. They will face enhanced penalties of a fine of up to $5,000 or optional imprisonment for up to six months. Clause 7 of the Bill likewise also enhances the penalty for the offence of purchasing illegal lottery tickets. Section 15 of the Common Gaming Houses Act deals with the situation where a place is presumed to be a common gaming house.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is really no necessity to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. This Bill was published more than two months before this sitting. Ample time has been given for anybody who has an opportunity to read it, who has views on it, to give their views, and I do not see any need for reference to a Select Committee. In fact, Members would agree with me that we have to take action quickly before the problem gets out of hand. I do not think it is necessary for me to reply to the Member for Anson, as I have already replied previously.”
“The present position is that the President, when he makes the Gazette notification, in fact, acts on the advice of the Minister. So this is really to streamline the situation. It makes no real substantive difference. The Minister, in fact, at the moment advises the President and the President acts on advice. Mr Speaker, I think I have dealt with most of the points.”
“He asked for assurance that those who are intimidated will be given protection. Indeed the operators of illegal mini-turf clubs do have connections with organized crime and secret society activities, and I do know of persons who have made reports to the Police that they have been intimidated and the Police have given protection. I give him that assurance that the Police will continue to do so. The Member for Changkat referred to the Singapore Pools decision, and I think she counselled that in future extension of operation of Singapore Pools should have due regard to the sentiments of the residents. If I am not mistaken, the Minister for Finance did give an indication along these lines the last time this was discussed. The Member for Whampoa, I have answered his point about the legalized outlets - that this is a way which can be considered. As to his point about the three telephones, let me point out, first, that the very purpose why I distributed the photograph is to give Members a clear indication of what is the kind of situation which is going to be the target of police operations. Why is it three telephones and not 10 telephones or eight telephones? Because three telephones are the minimum for illegal mini-turf clubs to operate. One for receiving calls on the race results and at least two to transmit the results to the network of mini-turf clubs which the betting information centre is involved with. Let me point out also that on that particular clause 7, the presumption is triggered off only when the police have entered the premises. So it is not a blanket provision where all offices are automatically presumed to be betting information centres if they have three or more telephones. As to clause 10, I think there is nothing sinister here.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I come to the points raised by other Members. The Member for Queenstown is still not here. His speech was interesting but rather contradictory because on the one hand he started off by saying that he is, in fact, against gambling. He wants the Singapore Turf Club and the Singapore Pools to be closed down. Shortly thereafter in his speech he advocated the establishment of more legalized outlets. Tax them, have a fat licensing fee, and so on. Perhaps there is some merit to the suggestion of the Member for Queenstown, and I think advocated by a few others, that there should be more legalized outlets. In a sense, this is a direction in which the Government has gone in that, like other countries, there is legalized and illegal gambling. Although I am prepared to consider the approach advocated by the Member for Queenstown, I think one point should be very clear. Having more legalized outlets, even privatizing them, is not going to solve your illegal gambling. Because there will be persons who will want to stay out of your controls of licensing, your controls of license fees, your controls of taxes, and the higher you raise the taxes, the more you have licensed outlets, there will be corresponding increase in illegal gamblers and a mushrooming of illegal gambling establishments. So it is a futile dream to think that the approach suggested by the Member for Queenstown, although it has merits and should be considered seriously, will be the solution to illegal mini-turf clubs. Therefore, even if we adopt the suggestion, there will still be illegal gambling and action will have to be taken because of the menace in the residential estates that I have mentioned. The Member for Fengshan referred to the provisions of the Bill. I am grateful for his support.”
“- should be allowed to print counterfeit money to solve their cash flow. [Laughter.]”
“He questions the motives of the Government. I have already stated very clearly and these have been re-stated by other Members of the House. He attacks the presumptions. Except for a very few of the amendments, most of the provisions on presumptions in the Bills are, in fact, redrafts of existing presumptions in the statutes. He has failed to understand that. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have the preposterous argument that, because of the recession, we should allow illegal activities. Really, Mr Speaker, Sir. The effect of the argument is, please permit the flouting of these laws. What next? Perhaps he will argue that because of the economic downturn we should allow shoplifting to be carried out in supermarkets. Allow illegal bootlegging in contravention of our liquor manufacturing laws. And perhaps even printing firms -”
“On 25th March, 1982, if he checks the Hansard, col. 1610, in a discussion again on mini-turf clubs, he started off his exposition with this phrase: 'All I want to say is that whilst I appreciate the need to stamp out any illegal bookmaking, would the police take steps to ensure that innocent persons ...' are not caught at the same time? I repeat, "All I want to say is that whilst I appreciate the need to stamp out any illegal bookmaking", now an about-turn. And he questions the motives. Mr Jeyaretnam rose -”
“Can I proceed, Mr Speaker, Sir. I think it is very misleading for a Member of the House to rely on an unpublished document sent to me as the Minister because the Minister himself has not revealed for the reason that I respect the correspondence I have with the President of the Law Society. I do not know on what basis the Law Society or its Secretary has chosen to pass a copy to the Member for Potong Pasir when it was not passed or distributed to any other Member here. If I am not mistaken, other Members have not received it. That is a separate matter which I hope the Law Society will choose -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the various Members who have spoken. First, let me reply to the Member for Queenstown. Unfortunately he is not here. Perhaps I will wait for him to come back and deal with the Member for Potong Pasir, since it is fresh in the memory of all those present here. It is really regrettable, Mr Speaker, Sir, that a Member comes here pretending to express views of his own until it is pointed out that it is not so. That he is relying on some document presented to the Minister, I think he should have in all conscience - Mr Chiam See Tong rose -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the position is that although the First Reading of this Bill was more than two months ago, the representation of the Law Society was received two or three days ago. Although it was received late, I have replied to the President of the Law Society in some detail, commenting on many of the points raised therein. And, in fact, pointing out that some of their representations are founded on gross inaccuracy and error, in not having compared the amendments side by side with the existing law. So I think it will be foolhardy for the Member for Potong Pasir to repeat points on which I have commented. And since it is not a public document, I would leave it to the Law Society whether they want to disclose both the memorandum and my reply publicly. Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, this piece of legislation that we are about to approve has got very many implications which are serious in respect of principles which we should not lightly throw away. Therefore, I would support again the call by the Member for Anson to refer this matter to a Select Committee so that the Law Society and perhaps other members of the public could make further representations.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if there is a document from which he is reading, I think it behoves the respect and decorum of the House for him to table this document which will enable me to table my reply to the Law Society. He should express his own views if he has any. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!”
“By what surreptitious means did you get it?”
“Did you get it from the President of the Law Society?”
“You don't have views of your own? Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, I am coming to that.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, each Member of this House has been elected by the people of Singapore in different constituencies, presumably, to express his own views according to his conscience and according to the values and principles which he upholds. The Member for Potong Pasir began a long speech without divulging to us that he has received, whether officially or unofficially, a copy of the memorandum of the Law Society which was referred to by the Member for Anson. Until I could see the similarity in the points, although a distance away from my chair, and I asked whether he was, in fact, reading points from the memorandum of the Law Society to which I have already given a reply. As Minister, I respect confidence with the Law Society in regard to my correspondence with them. They had given me a memorandum. I have replied to it. The Law Society has not made the exchange public. Neither have I. In fact, I would prefer the correspondence with the Law Society to be made public because it contains very serious errors, inaccuracies. I would leave it to the Law Society whether they want to publish their memorandum and my reply, side by side. But if the Member is relying on the Law Society's memorandum to point out legal points, I would say that he had better ask the Law Society for sight of my reply before he relies on it because I will have to demolish those points in the same way as I have done in my reply to the Law Society.”
“A point of clarification, Sir. Would the Member for Potong Pasir please clarify whether the views he is expressing are his own or whether he is, in fact, not reading from a representation of the Law Society which was submitted to me? And whether or not the notes that he has are, in fact, contained in the memorandum submitted by the Law Society? Can he answer that question?”
“I think it is time for us to take action and that is the purport of these Bills. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“] Sir, the Police have found difficulty in prosecuting operators of common betting houses and betting information centres because the operators have devised ingenious measures to destroy evidence and frustrate the Police. The presumptions rely on the evidence of gambling paraphernalia to prove that a place is used as a common betting house or betting information centre. Under the presumption for a betting information centre, a place will be presumed to be a betting information centre if it has three or more telephones or telephone lines and it satisfies one of the following conditions: (a) It is installed with a telecommunication equipment which is arranged in such a way as to suggest that it is being used for the receiving or transmitting of information relating to horse racing. (b) A person within the place is found destroying records of results or dividends payable. (c) Two or more telephone calls were received at the place enquiring about results, commentary or dividends payable. The owner or occupier of the place is presumed to be aware of its use as a betting information centre and anyone found therein is presumed to be assisting in the business of the betting information centre. Sir, there are other presumption clauses. As I said, the update and refine of the presumptions are to be found in the existing legislation. I would like to stress that all these presumptions are rebuttable and will not apply if the accused person can provide a reasonable explanation. Sir, as I have said, this is a problem which has plagued residents in HDB estates. Residents have complained and asked for action to be taken. Action was taken but because of the inadequacies in the law, they did not have the desired deterrent effect.”
“The other new definitions are those of "equipment", "sporting event" and "telecommunication system". The main thrust of these amendments is against the operators of these mini-turf clubs. Enhanced punishments will be introduced for these offences. The maximum fines will be increased significantly and there will also be minimum fines to ensure that the sentences are adequate as a deterrent. For instance, offences like bookmaking, running a common betting house and operating a betting information centre will carry a fine ranging from $20,000 to $200,000 and mandatory imprisonment which may extend to five years. Although illegal gambling operators will now face these minimum fines as well as mandatory imprisonment, those who use their facilities, the punters, will not similarly face mandatory imprisonment upon conviction. Instead, clause 5 only amends section 5 of the Act dealing with punters who indulge in illegal betting or wagering and provides for an enhanced penalty of a fine up to $5,000 or imprisonment up to six months. As regards presumptions, the Common Gaming Houses Act as well as this Betting Act have always contained presumption clauses. These pertain to offences like accepting or receiving stakes, dealing in lottery tickets as well as in situations where premises are presumed to be common gaming or betting houses. However, some of these presumptions have been overtaken by the increasingly sophisticated modern illegal gambling operations. They have to be brought up to date. A presumption clause has also to be introduced to deal with betting information centres which are crucial to mini-turf club operations. At this stage, could I kindly request the Clerk of Parliament to distribute a photograph. [Copies of photograph distributed to hon. Members.”
“I would like to stress that no new offences are created except for the offence of running a betting information centre and of obstructing police officers. If I may now turn to some of the amendments. First, with regard to the penalties. The proposed amendments are aimed primarily at the gambling operators. To deter the bookmakers and their agents, the existing penalties for various categories of gambling offences are enhanced, including the imposition of mandatory prison sentences for those concerned with the management or business of a common betting house or a betting information centre. Next, the amendment proposes measures against betting information centres. Mini-turf clubs depend on betting information centres to provide information on race results. At present, there are no specific provisions in the law under which persons involved in the running of betting information centres can be prosecuted. It is therefore proposed to amend the Bet- ting Act to introduce specific provisions to deal with the problem of betting information centres and against those involved in the running of such centres. As far as definitions are concerned, clause 2 of the Bill introduces certain new definitions and refines the interpretation section. In particular, it has included the definition of a betting information centre which is essentially a place "kept or used for receiving or transmitting by telephone or other means any information relating to any horse-race or other sporting event for the purpose of betting or wagering in contravention of this Act." Such betting information centres are a recent development and are not covered in the Act. They are crucial in the illegal bookmaking network in that they supply mini-turf clubs and bookmakers with information on race results.”
“For the year that has just ended, 1985, more than 1,750 complaints have been received by the Police from individuals as well as organizations, and including Members of Parliament; and more than 50 complaints from RCs and CCCs, urging action to be taken. Is it for want of enforcement action by the Police? No, Sir. The Police have taken action, and in 1985 more than 11,000 raids were conducted. Persons were arrested. But the problem is that there are serious deficiencies in our laws, laws which are subject to amendment today. There are basically three inadequacies in the law. One is that the penalties which are prescribed in the legislation have not been revised for more than a quarter century. And, therefore, this has made it not a deterrent and the operators of the illegal mini-turf clubs therefore operate without scant regard for the law. Second, there is no offence for running a betting information centre. I shall later distribute a photograph which will give Members an idea of what is the set-up in a betting information centre. Thirdly, Sir, the way in which these mini-turf clubs are conducted. The use of paraphernalia is such that documentary evidence is very difficult to obtain. So these amendments, therefore, are designed to respond to this problem. Members will recall that this was last raised in this House in early 1985 and I then gave assurance that the matter would be studied in a comprehensive manner. I outlined some of the problems, the inadequacies in the law, and that my Ministry would be presenting legislation later on to tackle this problem. The amendments, therefore, seek to meet this problem and to close the gaps in the laws which are referred to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill should really be taken together with the following two Bills, the Common Gaming Houses (Amendment) Bill and the Road Vehicles (Special Powers) (Amendment) Bill, three of which are to be viewed as a package of amendments. I am not sure how Members want to speak on these Bills. It may be better for the adjoining issues for discussion to be on the first Bill, although Members need not be precluded from speaking on the other two Bills, as I will be outlining the rationale in my speech on this Bill. Sir, the amendments are really a response to an issue of public interest and a response to voluminous public complaints and outcry. I think all Members are aware of the problem which illegal mini-turf clubs pose to the public and to the residents in our HDB estates. Large crowds gather at coffee shops and hawker centres on days when there are races. The proliferation of the illegal mini-turf clubs in housing estates has given rise to concern on the part of residents, concern that has been expressed in various forums, including this House. What is the impact of illegal mini-turf clubs? It has an adverse impact on the quality of life and on the environment in HDB estates particularly. It has ruined the residential environment. It has an unsavoury and an unpleasant effect on the residents, most of whom are law-abiding and want to live in peace and security. The crowds which gather and operators of illegal mini-turf clubs not only frequent the premises but also spill over into corridors and even staircases of the HDB blocks. Members of the public have experienced feelings of insecurity and anxiety and a sense of lawlessness is created.”
“As for the number of countries whose systems permit appeal to the Privy Council, he will find only a handful of countries, and Singapore is one of them. As to the other questions, if he wants answers, I think he can enrol in an extramural course in the University. But even when an appeal is stopped, and if leave is not given by the Court, surely he knows that one can still appeal to the Privy Council against the decision refusing leave. 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 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to prolong this debate. I have asked a simple question ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I suggest to the Member for Potong Pasir that he kindly refer to the debate which took place in this House in 17th March, 1981, (Hansard, cols. 695 onwards) where the Prime Minister spoke of the need for High Court judges and of the difficulty in getting High Court Judges. And if the Member for Anson or the Member for Potong Pasir have names to suggest to us, other than themselves, I will be willing to put it to the Prime Minister if there is such a suitable person.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was taking notes up to a point after which I gave up, and I made it a point to put in quotes his words that this particular Judge "should have been promoted" had his transfer not taken place. I do not know. He may be worthy of promotion, he may not be. But these are, as I have said, matters for the Legal and Judicial Service Commission headed by the Chief Justice, and I would leave it to them to take the decision. He has made a second point that all these transfers which he referred to were because the decisions were not acceptable. This is a statement which he should justify here as to how he comes to the conclusion without mentioning how many other transfers there have been in the past year, two years or three years. As I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, these views of the Member for Anson, which he presents to the members of the public, is a jaundiced view of a person who has not had satisfaction in the courts as he would have liked. As to appeals, he spent a great deal of time talking about appeals. I have one very simple question. How many countries are there in the world that he can refer to where there are appeals to the Privy Council in criminal and civil cases? I would like him to mention them, other than Singapore. That is the litmus test of our judicial system's independence. That is all I have to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply because the vast majority of the points that he has made are not related to the contents of the Bill.”
“Seven new judicial appointments and the creation of seven additional courts.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to reply to the Member for Potong Pasir, it will be helpful if he is present in the House in the discussion of the Bills in which he has an interest. I have already said earlier in the debate that the Ministry of Finance has approved the creation of seven new -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In line with the increase in the civil jurisdiction of the District Courts, it is also considered necessary that the criminal jurisdiction of the District Courts be also increased. At present a District Court has jurisdiction to try all offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed seven years or which are punishable with fine only. The Bill will extend the jurisdiction of a District Court to try all offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed 10 years. In addition, the Bill will empower a District Court to try all offences, except an offence punishable with death, where the Public Prosecutor applies to the Court to try any such offence and the accused has so consented to be tried. The Bill will also enhance the general power of a District Court to impose sentences of imprisonment and fine. At present a District Court can impose imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and fine not exceeding $5,000. Clause 4 of the Bill will empower a District Court, to impose imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years and a fine not exceeding $10,000. This Bill does not affect the specific jurisdiction and powers of a District Court conferred by legislation, such as the Misuse of Drugs Act, and other legislation which exceed those provided by the Criminal Procedure Code. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill before us is consequential on the amendments introduced by the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill which we have just dealt with. At present an appeal lies to the High Court from a District Court in any suit or action for the recovery of immovable property or in any civil cause or matter where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter exceeds $500. Sir, to reflect the increase in the jurisdiction of a District Court, this amount of $500 will now be increased to $2,000. The Bill also provides for an appeal from a decision of a Magistrate Court to the High Court in similar circumstances. The amendment to section 34(1)(a) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act is for consistency. At present no appeal shall be brought to the Court of Appeal where the amount or value of the subject matter in the trial is less than $1,000. This amount is similarly being increased to $2,000. Sir, I beg to move. 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 -”
“We can also give other hats to the Minister for Law to make him on par with the Lord Chancellor in England. The Member for Anson has also commented on the quality of District Court Judges. I do not think it is just a question of increasing the number of years of service. It is a question whether the Legal Service Commission is able to attract the best for the District Courts. Finally, his question on remuneration. This is, of course, tied up with his other point and proposal of the Subordinate Court judiciary, and therefore I need not comment on that. As to the point raised by the Member for Queenstown, hopefully, the answer is yes. 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 -”
“It has worked satisfactorily and there are no good reasons why we should change that now, notwithstanding what the Member for Anson has said. He has referred on many occasions during his speech to the system in the United Kingdom, and he has pointed out that County Court Judges in the United Kingdom are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor in England is a Member of the Cabinet. So I take it that from his approving reference to this that he would prefer the Minister for Law in Singapore to be in charge of appointment -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may comment on the points raised by the Member for Anson. His first point relates to the question whether, with the passage of this Bill, the delay in hearing cases in the Supreme Court will be transferred to the Subordinate Courts. In reply, I wish to say that I have discussed this very question with the Registrar of the Supreme Court and I have been assured that this will not be the case because seven new judicial posts will be created. They have been approved by the Ministry of Finance and, in addition, six new courts will be added and these should be ready by the middle of this year. As to his long speech on the Subordinate Courts and the District Judges, it really boils down to this. In his view the Magistrates and District Judges are appointed, transferred, and emplaced by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, and that although the Judicial and Legal Service Commission has a special place in our Constitution,and although it is chaired by no other than the Chief Justice, he is against the system because he considers that it is not immune from the displeasure of the Executive. This is, of course, an innuendo that the District Courts and District Judges are not independent, a view which was pervaded not long ago, as Members will recall, by a newspaper, the Asian Wall Street Journal, and which led to contempt proceedings, a view for which the person responsible for the Asian Wall Street Journal apologized to the Court. So I need not say anything more except to add that this system of Subordinate Court Judges being appointed by the Legal Service Commission chaired by the Chief Justice has been in operation for a very long time.”
“In the first three quarters of this year, there were 29 accidents along Bedok Reservoir Road between its junction with Bedok North Avenue 3 and its junction with Jalan Eunos. Fifteen of them involved heavy vehicles. The number of accidents on this road is considered high. The heavy flow of traffic, speeding vehicles, and illegal parking along the road are the main factors which have contributed to the high number of accidents. The Traffic Police are aware of the high accident rate at this location and have taken strict enforcement action to curb speeding and illegal parking. Between January and September this year, 238 vehicles were booked for speeding and 1,457 for illegal parking along the kerbside. The Traffic Police and the Roads Division of the PWD had carried out joint site inspections of the road to determine how the flow of traffic and pedestrians could be better regulated. Following the site inspections, two traffic lights were recently installed in the area. One is a signalised pedestrian crossing light in front of Block 713, a point used by a large number of pedestrians patronising the hawker centre at Block 739. The other is a signalised traffic light near Block 704. The traffic lights became operational on 17 October 1985. The installation of the two traffic lights and strict enforcement action is expected to reduce the number of accidents and improve road safety along the road. The number of patrols there has also been increased and the situation is being closely monitored. GRATUITIES AND PENSIONS PAID TO MINISTERS AND MPS 22.”
“Some 62,482 school children have been instructed on road safety through the Road Safety Park which was opened in 1981. ROAD SAFETY AT BEDOK RESERVOIR ROAD 21. Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he is aware that Bedok Reservoir Road (from Bedok North Avenue 3 junction to Jalan Eunos junction) has become hazardous and what enforcement action will be taken by the Traffic Police to improve safety on this stretch of road in view of the daily indiscriminate driving by drivers of heavy vehicles serving the construction site in the vicinity and the illegal kerbside parking by vehicles throughout the day.”
“For the past twelve months (October 1984 - September 1985), a total of 866 persons were booked for jaywalking. However, the figures for this period ought not be compared with figures for the previous period (4,230) because over the years,the Police have altered their strategy from enforcement at all pedestrian crossing points in the city to one of selective enforcement at certain identified locations, e.g. accident prone areas and areas where there are numerous complaints of jaywalking. At the same time, greater emphasis is placed on public education on road safety. The number of persons actually booked, therefore, was reduced. In addition to the selective enforcement at certain pedestrian crossings, Police on normal patrol duties are also instructed to take enforcement action against jaywalkers and to advise pedestrians on the need to observe the Pedestrian Crossing Rules. A significant indicator of the strategy is the number of pedestrians involved in road accidents. The number dropped from 1,301 from January to September 1984 to 977 cases for the corresponding period in 1985, a decrease of 24.9%. The number of fatal accidents involving pedestrians has also dropped from 67 to 47. Members of the public are now more conscious of their own safety on the road. The Police is therefore not considering stricter enforcement action against jaywalking. However, they will continue to enforce the Pedestrian Crossing Rules. The Traffic Police together with PWD will continue to identify accident-prone areas with a view to building more overhead bridges or installing other pedestrian crossing facilities. Furthermore, the police will still be visiting schools and community centres to encourage road safety through exhibitions and talks.”
“The Police, on their part, will continue to keep the public informed of the crime trends in their neighbourhood and disseminate information on crime prevention through publications, regular exhibitions and talks. More Neighbourhood Watch Groups in residential areas and Crime Prevention Committees in commercial premises and shopping complexes will be organised. The establishment of more NPPs will also help to bring the police closer and more accessible to the public. Police Officers now work more closely with the residents living in the neighbourhood and with the community grassroot organisations. These efforts to cultivate police/public cooperation have had an impact on crime control and arrest rates. There has been an encouraging trend over the last two months of members of the public rendering assistance to the police in arresting criminals. About 20 criminals were arrested either directly by members of the public or indirectly through information which led to the arrest of the criminals. These cases show that community-oriented policing is a step in the right direction. JAYWALKING 20. Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there has been a substantial increase in jaywalking offences in the past twelve months; and, if so, whether his Ministry is considering stricter enforcement measures in the near future.”