Shriniwas Rai
Singapore
“Like the Select Committee, Sir, we should encourage the public to put their proposals in writing to the Clerk of Parliament who could then send them to the Minister concerned for his consideration. Sir, I am aware that the GPC does play a very important and consultative role. But it does not come under the purview of this Parliament.”
“Sir, like good health, we take good government for granted. Sir, I end my speech with this remark. We are a young nation. Our institutions are still evolving. We must try to evolve a system of government that suits, and I repeat, our social, economic and political needs. We cannot just borrow from other countries' constitution.”
“Sir, I have the benefit of going through Mr Inderjit Singh's speech earlier, and I support his call for a two-tier category. I think it is something that is worthy of consideration. Although it may not be practical now, I think we should give it serious thought. Sir, this is a very judicious Bill.”
“Of course, if the need arises, and if it is useful for it to be corporatised, that can be considered. 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. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].”
“Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam has totally taken away my motion. It is not an amendment to the motion. He had been the Registrar of the Supreme Court. He knows the procedure very well. He must have my amendment in some form or other. What he has done is that he has completely taken out my motion and put in his amendment, which is wrong.”
“Yes, I am speaking on the amendment. Sir, I ask the House to reject the amendment. Do not laugh, Mr Jeyaretnam, I am coming to it. I think Mr Jeyaretnam forgets that any Member of Parliament can raise any issue in this Parliament. The fact that he has moved an amendment to my motion signifies that I have the right to speak.”
The complete record
Every one of 327 lines we hold for Shriniwas Rai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 7.
“The present members are distinguished people with very rich backgrounds. We have a young poet, banker, architect, accountant and people from the academia. Sir, it is a credit to the Minister that he need not have amended this section. The Minister could have allowed the membership to remain at nine and then reduce the quorum from five to three, which is a respectable number in most panels and tribunals. Even our Court of Appeal has three members. It just goes to show that the Minister is sincerely concerned with the decision-making process and to make it more transparent. I think this House should applaud this action by the Minister. I welcome the increase in the number and I hope the Minister would include retired lawyers, civil servants and community leaders who could provide valuable inputs in this decision-making process. Sir, I read yesterday's Straits Times and I appreciate the arguments and sentiments by Koh Buck Song in the editorial page. But I think the quorum should perhaps be increased from five to seven for cases which are controversial, but not in all cases. But for cases which are of public interest, it should be increased. It should be left to the discretion of the Committee's Chairman or Vice-Chairman. Sir, there is another area which I would urge the Minister to consider and this is on the appointment of two Vice-Chairmen, instead of the present practice of choosing by the members themselves when the Chairman or Vice-Chairman is not available. Sir, I think we should institutionalise the Committee of Appeal's work. In landmark cases, it should give its grounds which should be published. By doing so, the public and the trade would know the view of the Committee of Appeal. Sir, I am also concerned that the fines have been increased excessively.”
“And in the absence of other judicial authorities, our courts would have to evolve our own law and it will take some time for the law to be settled. Meanwhile, the question that has to be asked and answered is this: are we sending the wrong signals to Singaporeans that we are becoming less tolerant of political dissent? We have seen a slow nurturing of civic bodies whose aim is to get the community involved in decision making and to provide a valuable link to the policy makers. In fact, two of the NMPs in this House have come from this background. The question that we have to ask is: what would happen if one of the civic bodies were to make a film to educate its members? Under the Bill, a film which has got a political end is subject to the control of the law, even if only a small part of the film is likely to affect voting in any election. This is indeed very restrictive. Even a civic group which intends to educate its members may run foul of the law. Unlike the other Members, I have no contention with the second part of the definition which tries to contain partisan or biased comments. I think the judge will be in a position to decide. There are other concerns, Mr Speaker, Sir, which I would like to highlight in the House. Whilst the definition of "obscene" is something of a question of judgment value, I hope that the officials dealing with the matter would be a little bit more liberal in the definition. Value judgment and question of morality change from society to society and from age to age. What was decadent sometime ago may not be so now in the light of new attributes. Although the fine line between what is work of art and what is yellow culture may be strained, we should try to be more accommodating. My other concern is on the Committee of Appeal.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity. At the outset, I would like to disclose my interest. I am a member of the Indian PAC which is chaired by Mr S. Dhanabalan. Sir, the Bill introduces a new area, namely, political films which are subject to the purview of this Bill. I wonder why the need to have this area legislated. I share the concerns shown by the other NMPs and I will not repeat them. Political parties still could hold rallies and speak their mind during the election, and yet they have to be subjected to this law if they were to produce a film with a political end. Sir, as a people and as a government, I think we can take pride, and I say this seriously and even the opposition parties will agree, that we have the most fair elections anywhere in the world. Issues are debated openly and the voters have the right to choose. I think we should preserve this. In other countries, violence and money politics take the front stage. We have, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, started building a participatory democracy. Civil organisations are growing up. Even the Straits Times' Forum page, compared to, say, 20 years ago, has more serious issues debated. On Saturday, the political page Insight deals with current issues in some depth. It airs the views of the various leaders and the man-in-the-street. There will be criticisms of this Bill from some quarters, especially the Western press. I think there will be some criticisms by Singaporeans that this Bill is going to silence the opposition. Sir, the definition of "political end" cannot be exhaustive. I agree. But the definition, as it stands, is very wide. I do not have any notion whether any other country has got similar legislation.”
“No, Sir. BILLS INTRODUCED 1.25 pm SUPPLY BILL "to provide for the issue from the Consolidated Fund and the Development Fund of the sums necessary to meet the estimated expenditure for the financial year 1st April 1998 to 31st March 1999", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY BILL "to provide for making supplementary provision to meet additional expenditure for the financial year 1st April 1997 to 31st March 1998", recommendation of President signified; presented by Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1997 TO 31ST MARCH, 1998 (Paper Cmd. 2 of 1998) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair]”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would be very happy to answer him in private. But I thought under the Standing Orders -”
“Under the Standing Orders, I do not think I can answer.”
“Sir, even if there is no NMP available from this House but the exigency of Government requires a Minister to be urgently appointed, is the Deputy Prime Minister happy with the situation or is he prepared to reconsider the position he has just stated to this House? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have not had problems getting Ministers elected and the Prime Minister has said that he has no intention of appointing non-elected Members as Ministers. I think that is the position we can stay with for some time.”
“Immediately upon the commencement of the crisis, the Prime Minister announced he would take a reduction and he was followed by other Ministers and even judges of the High Court. So let us get it right. Everyone will follow if we lead instead of waiting for somebody else to start. And is it to be suggested that the salaries have not gone down or beenreduced in the private sector? Mr Chiam was talking about earnings of lawyers but I am not just concerned with lawyers. Is it not a fact that people who are earning are earning less now than what they were? So have they not taken a reduction? And I see that the Deputy Prime Minister has attempted to answer the question. But Mr Chiam's question was, if the salaries in the private sector have gone down, are the Ministers prepared to take a lower salary? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, perhaps Mr Jeyaretnam will allow me to clarify the point which he has just raised. As I have explained, the Ministers' salaries are pegged to the private sector. When the private sector's salaries go down, the Ministers' salaries will also go down as soon as we ascertain what the private sector's state of affairs is.”
“Well, if you want to have the floor, continue to do so. Mr Jeyaretnam: Again, the Nominated Member of Parliament repeats what we were told in 1985 and what we heard afterwards from the Deputy Prime Minister that if it is necessary for a national reduction in salaries, then perhaps Ministers should set the lead. There you have it. "No, we are not going to be the first. You do it first. If you do it first, then we will follow." That is the sort of leadership we have got. It is not, "We will set you an example so that others may follow." That is the kind of leadership one expects. The Nominated Member of Parliament asks: will the others also follow suit? Well, who knows, they will follow suit if they see that the Ministers have decided to set an example, people in the industries and people in the banks may follow suit and decide that they will make their contribution as well because you have the Ministers setting an example and the Members of Parliament setting an example. So do not, please, wait for someone else to set you an example. You set the example yourself first. The Nominated MP again says my motion is a political or emotional issue. This is not just a gimmick. The British Cabinet, the Labour Government and, in particular, the Prime Minister, after he was elected - and that country is not facing any crisis or economic downturn - said he would not take any increase and, in fact, would take a cut in his salaries. Then it was followed by other Ministers because the people could see the great disparity between the ordinary salaries and the Ministers' salaries. Then we have the example over the Causeway, which I mentioned in 1985.”
“You are not being fair to the Nominated Members of Parliament. We are here not to represent either the PAP or the Opposition.”
“Sir, I take exception to that remark by Mr Jeyaretnam.”
“We must keep our windows open even if it means some foul air coming in. The Bill is going to give the Government wide power. There is no way to check against abuse. May I suggest that whenever the official decides to classify any publication as objectionable publication, he should consult advisers who are drawn from outside the Government. In this way, the public would have confidence in the decision of the official, bearing in mind that there is no appeal to the Court, as the Minister's decision is final. I therefore plead for establishing a Committee of Advisers. Sir, we also must urge the publishers and booksellers to have some degree of self-censorship. Recently, my attention was drawn to a book by one of the popular fiction writers in America. It is supposed to deal with the corporate world, but every one in 10 pages speaks of explicit sexual acts, often fringing on perversity. I will not mention the book to this House but I will give the title to the Minister. Sir, I can do no better than to end my speech by quoting again the Address of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in 1965. May I quote: `Needless to say, the more extreme any community is about one race, one language and one religion, the more likely it is to arouse counter chauvinism amongst the other communities to the detriment of all.' Sir, with this, I end my speech and I support the Bill.”
“It is to the credit of the Malay leadership and the people that the view of the sixties has been abandoned for the good. Sir, language extremism is not the monopoly of any one group. There are chauvinists in every group, but we can minimize the danger. One small spark and the House is on fire. Let us have some fire prevention. Sir, the fact that we do not have communal clashes must not leave us to believe everything is fine. From time to time, chauvinists rear their ugly heads. We must try to curb the exuberance of chauvinists. Language is a very emotive issue. People are prepared to die for it. Some do die in the hope that they will become martyrs. We can learn from the experience of other countries where language groups clash. The end result is chaos and disorder. These countries often experience riots. We too had our fair share of riots and curfews. I think there is a loophole in the Bill. Let us cover it now to prevent a floodgate. We have not seen for sometime the language issue being openly debated, but it can reappear. We pride ourselves as pragmatic people practising prevention and looking beyond the horizon. We enacted the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. The law has a salutary effect. The fanatics and fundamentalists have adopted a moderate line. The need to enforce the law has not arisen because of the Act. May I urge, in a similar vein, the Minister to consider including language in the sub-clause. If he cannot do so, he should state his stand on the matter so that a clear message will be sent to the would-be mischief makers. Sir, I welcome control of objectionable publications. However, I would like to plead for caution. We must not prohibit publications as long as they do not question our fundamental beliefs.”
“And I congratulate the Minister for allowing this provision in the Bill. This will ensure that the scholars are not denied these works. I have a fundamental question which I would like to address to the Minister. This is regarding the new section 2B(1)(b). Sir, a publication would be objectionable if it describes, depicts or otherwise deals with matters of race or religion which is likely to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility. I beg the Minister to think of one further area which should be included, besides race and religion. Language is a very sensitive issue. Feelings of enmity and ill-will may result if a publication makes offensive comments on one's language or makes criticism in such a way that it will create ill-will. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are a multi-lingual country. As a result of political stability, the language fanatics are not in a position to inflame feelings. But not too long ago, the communalists were propagating supremacy of their language. With your permission, Sir, I would like to go back to the early days of our Republic. At the Opening of the First Parliament on 8th December 1965, His Excellency the Yang Di-Pertuan Negara reminded the House and I quote: `There are people in Singapore who, even after a few months of separation, still talked raucously, albeit foolishly, about the implementation of one language - the national language - in teaching at all levels including the university. If such a policy was unwise when we were part of the wider framework of Malaysia, now in the context of Singapore, the lunacy of such statement should have been manifest to all. Yet they are being made and considerable publicity in the Jawi press.' We no longer have the Jawi press or extreme Malay leaders.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to speak. Sir, the Undesirable Publications Act goes back to 1938 when the colonial government first introduced it for the obvious purpose of controlling political literature. Things had changed. In 1967, the Act was repealed and re-enacted. Now, we have further amendments to the Act. Sir, most civilised societies do not like to have censorship either on moral or political grounds. But we are not living in an ideal society. I think some degree of control has to be exercised by the society over the individual. On principle, I agree with the amendments and I support the Bill. However, I have some reservations and queries and I would like the Minister to give them his due consideration and I am sure he will do that. Sir, we are an open society. We are in the age of information technology, satellite and cable television. Most homes have access to Internet. We are now receiving publications from India, China, Thailand, Bangladesh, Philippines, besides the traditional sources. Therefore, it is desirable that publications from these countries should not have anything that will undermine the social fabric of our society. Not too long ago, an Indian publication which was sold in Singapore had a very undesirable photograph, though it was a beautiful photograph, in the middle of the magazine. Fortunately, Sir, I am pleased to note that this publication has not reappeared in Singapore. I do not know whether it is effective supervision by the Ministry or whether it is the voluntary will of the distributor. Sir, we have moved a long way from the days of yellow culture of 1959 when some publications had to be prohibited. Times have changed. We must allow publications that will enrich our literary and artistic life.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister, in view of the interest shown by the public in the press, whether he would consider sending the proposed Bill to a Select Committee when the time arises. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Let us see how the Bill shapes up first. We are working on the details. We will take into consideration the suggestion by the Member at the time when the Bill is finalised by the Government. We will then look at the magnitude of the Bill and decide whether or not to send it to a Select Committee.”
“May I ask the Senior Minister of State that in view of the fact that this will be the only centre that will be offering Tamil as a language, would she consider that the two modules are rather short because there is a shortage of Tamil teachers in Singapore? One of the problems with the Indian community is whether the Government would take steps to see that the Tamil language is taught at the higher institutes of learning. This being the first time, would the Senior Minister of State consider increasing the load to, say, five modules?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he would give an assurance to the House that despite Micropolis, the Government will not get cold feet and will go on investing where there is a possibility that the public fund will benefit from investment, because there is a perception that because of Micropolis, the Government may get cold feet. I would like to have an assurance to this House by the Minister that despite Micropolis, he will make sound investment where he thinks it will benefit the economy. Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: We do not take fright from Members' criticisms.”
“On conservation, we are all aware how it has worked and enhanced the physical beauty of Singapore. We have various places like Tanjong Pagar where we have a mixture of residential and commercial buildings. I have one request to ask of the Minister. Would he consider in certain cases a shophouse which has got two usages: one shopping unit downstairs and you have a residential office upstairs. Would he be prepared to allow sub-divisions so that the owner, if necessary, could sell the property or sub-lease for, say, 30 or 60 years? I think this would help in the already depressed property market. I would also like to urge the Minister to get his officials to try to conserve as many properties as possible. Otherwise some of the properties would be lost forever. We should conserve some schools, some hospitals and even some police stations. I think we should not repeat the mistake of earlier times where a lot of properties were pulled down. Later on, we could decide if we really require this property or not. But I would urge the Minister to consider this and ask his officials to act fast on this matter. Finally, we can pride ourselves as a people who have maintained our conserved properties well and we should ensure that these properties are well preserved in such a way that they would help to beautify Singapore.”
“Sir, I support the Bill. However, there are some clauses of the Bill which I would like the Minister to reconsider. First of all, clause 33, Sir. As the Bill stands now, only the High Court can grant an injunction. The Minister may be aware that now the District Court is granting injunction and I see no reason why we should burden the High Court, which is already burdened with other cases, with this provision. We all know that it is cheaper and easier to make application in the District Court. I can understand that when the provision was first enacted, there was a limitation in the power of the District Court. But we have moved a great deal. In fact, now the District Court can grant an injunction. I would urge the Minister to reconsider the position. The other clause that I am concerned about also involves the power of the court as well. Under clause 48, the District Court's power is only when the sum does not exceed $1,000. I checked in the library yesterday and found that it was a very old provision when the power of the District Court was limited to $1,000. As of today, it is $250,000. Would the Minister reconsider this position? Otherwise, the public would be put to great expense in going to the High Court and lawyers would charge higher fees. It is time-consuming and I think the High Court's time would also be wasted. It is more expensive to have High Court judges than District Court judges. So I would urge the Minister to reconsider this position. He has increased the fines which, I agree with him, should have been increased. But he has not increased the jurisdiction in other clauses. So I would urge him to reconsider this position, Sir. I agree with the other provisions, but I have only two observations.”
“Sir, in view of the explanation offered by the Minister, I do not wish to move my amendment. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 9 to 26 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. HAZARDOUS WASTE (CONTROL OF EXPORT, IMPORT AND TRANSIT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“I would urge the House to consider the position of having a legally-qualified person to head the Tribunal. I am happy with the provision that there is a Commissioner and a number of Deputy Commissioners. There are two ways of going about it. Either we have a legally-qualified person or we could have a panel of three, of whom one must be the chair person, ie, the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, who must be legally-qualified. I leave it to the Minister's discretion. But as the Tribunal has the same immunity as that of the High Court, perhaps the Minister may consider having a person who is qualified under the Constitution to be a High Court Judge to be a Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner. Sir, I am mindful of the fact that we should not clog up our court but in order to give confidence to the business community and the public, it would be in the interest of the trade to have a person who is legally-qualified. I would urge the Minister to reconsider this because all we have got under clause 8(4) is: "No person shall be appointed or shall continue to hold office as Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner if he - (a) is of unsound mind; (b) is an undischarged bankrupt or has made any arrangement or composition with his creditors; or (c) is convicted of an offence involving dishonesty, fraud or moral turpitude or has not received a free pardon." These are rather prohibitive qualifications. What we require are some positive qualifications to show that the person who is heading is a person who is capable of discharging his duties.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for letting me speak on the Bill. The introduction of the Bill shows the Singapore Government's support for international relations as well as multi-lateral trade. It is gratifying that this Bill has provision for mediation, which is a feature of our judicial system. This will help in resolving disputes. However, Sir, I am a little disturbed as clause 7(3) takes away the power of the Court, but it is reassuring that clause 8 has provision for the setting up of a Tribunal. Sir, may I first read clause 7(3)? "A breach of a duty referred to in subsection (1) shall not be the subject of any proceedings in any court but may be the subject of a challenge brought before the Tribunal by a supplier to whom the duty is owed and who has suffered, or reasonably risks suffering, loss or damage as a result of the breach." Sir, while it is reassuring that the Tribunal would look after the interest of the aggrieved supplier, it is a little disturbing that in the UK a High Court Judge hears the dispute, but in Singapore the Tribunal is to be headed by a layman. To give assurance to the public at large, may I urge the Minister to consider a provision which we have in other statutes as well, such as the Maintenance of Parents Tribunal or Strata Titles Board. It has been the practice in this country to have a legally-qualified man, and if he is not happy that he should have the same qualification as a High Court Judge, may I urge him to consider a person who is legally qualified. There is no shortage of talents in Singapore and there are many lawyers who have more than 10 years of standing. Sir, the Tribunal would have to deal with disputes and lawyers would have the right of audience, and questions of evidence and procedures have to be looked at.”
“Sir, on a more fundamental issue, the question that we as a people must ask is what type of society we are going to bring about. Are we going to encourage litigations in society where parties go to court on issues which in other countries are settled by mediation. In short, the system of justice shows the values of the people. We are an Asian society. Our social values differ from the western nations. We pride in community well-being rather than in individual rights. As such, mediation would be relevant to resolve disputes. In the adversarial set-up, there is only one winner. Under the proposed system, all parties would be happier as mediation has a conciliatory effect on the parties and hopefully they may live happily after that. In certain cases, there may be some arm twisting in order to get social justice but that is something we need not fear. Success of the system will depend on the choice of the Director who will play a pivotal role in the working of the system. The people who are chosen as mediators must be community leaders who command the respect of the community. Perhaps we should enlarge the system of Justices of Peace. Two other hon. Members before me have emphasised, and I think I need to further emphasise, that we should try to increase the pool of JPs. We should include some lawyers as mediators. In some disputes, especially in areas of criminal law, lawyers may be better placed to mediate. We should try to make use of people who have vast experience in community well-being. At times, mediators would have to decide very sensitive issues and in these cases, we should have more than one mediator. With this, I support the Bill, Sir.”
“Sir, under clause 5, the Director may delegate his power. I am unhappy with this provision. May we have other designated officers, like Deputy and Assistant Directors, to assist him? Also, Sir, success of the law would depend on the choice of Directors and mediators. Sir, the Government has maintained a very high standard in appointments to tribunals. I hope it would be done in this case. I now move to clause 15. I suggest that the power of the mediator be increased. Perhaps, a legally trained mediator would be useful in cases under clause 15 so that he could bring finality to the matter instead of referring the matter to the Subordinate Courts again. I know this requires changes in our criminal law and Criminal Procedure Code. I think in the interest of the community, welfare and justice, we should look into this and if it is not possible to do so now, I hope it could be done later. I am concerned with the rules of evidence, Sir. Clause 10(3) of the Bill reads: "The rules of evidence do not apply to mediation session." This is rather puzzling, Sir. Can a mediator disregard the evidence? To do so would be unjust and unfair. Even the Maintenance of Parents Act is more satisfactory. Section 14(9) of the Act reads: "The Tribunal shall not be bound by the strict rules of evidence and shall determine the conduct of its proceedings." I hope that the rules of evidence would be the same as that of the Small Claims Tribunal under section 25(1) of the Small Claims Tribunals Act which reads: "A Tribunal shall not be bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit." Unfortunately, these provisions do not exist in the intending legislation.”
“Sir, mediation is not new to Asian society. In villages, disputes are settled by a Council of Elders who act as mediators. Sir, may I relate a recent case which shows the effective working of mediation. Just a year ago, in the Subordinate Court, a tenancy dispute that would have taken a few days and a few thousand dollars in legal fees ended after the parties saw a Mediation Judge in Chambers. The Judge played a proactive role and took pains to point out the legal position to the parties and to the solicitors. Let me now contrast this with a case which happened some 25 years ago where two neighbours went to the Magistrate Court in South Bridge Road over a minor dispute. It was a private summons case. The matter went on for a few days. The learned Magistrate dismissed the case. Both parties paid the lawyers handsomely. Both men had large families. Both were ordinary wage earners. They spent their hard earned savings on this unproductive exercise. Even now, the families are not on talking terms. So are the children, some of whom are graduates. It is yet to be seen how the grandchildren will see to this family feud. Mr Speaker, Sir, as a practising lawyer, I see merit in the Bill before this House. Mediation has the advantage that it is accessible and the hearing could be held in the evening in the housing estates. It is expeditious. It saves costs. It is pacifying. It is healing. It is informal, less intimidating and, most of all, it is user friendly. Sir, there are some areas which perhaps could have been better drafted but I think it would be premature to criticise the Bill as a whole and the thing to do is to leave it to the working for a year or so and to review to see what amendments could be made. But there are some provisions in the Bill which need reconstruction.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to you for giving me this opportunity to speak on this Bill. At the outset, I must disclose my interest. I am a practising lawyer and I also sit as a panel member of the Strata Titles Board and the Maintenance of Parents Tribunal, Sir. Sir, the Bill before the House is timely. We have successfully experimented with the system in the Subordinate Courts. The Family Court has adopted mediation to settle disputes. In the High Court, parties are encouraged to settle disputes at Mediation Centres set up by the Singapore Academy of Law. Sir, small disputes involving neighbours and family members should not end up in court where, under the existing system of justice, it is adversarial. In the course of the trial and cross-examination, feelings of the parties get affected and the loser is likely to nurse grievances despite justice being done to him. Sir, court trial is costly, time consuming and distressing. Some 150 years ago, an advice was given on litigation that is relevant even today. Unfortunately, the advice was not followed. Let me quote: "Discourage litigation. Persuade client to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them that how the nominal winner is often the loser in fees, expenses and waste of time." The advice was given by Abraham Lincoln, Sir. Sadly, the American lawyers continued to depend heavily on litigation to settle disputes. The American society is well known for its litigation and the judicial system almost came to a strain. A movement in 1970s started in America, which is called Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), to resolve disputes. It gained ground in America, Australia and we in Singapore have experimented in our court, especially in the Subordinate Courts. It has worked smoothly and satisfactorily.”