PROTECTED PLACES AND AREAS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Butterfield: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, this Bill is designed to make permanent the provisions of the Protected Places Ordinance which was enacted in 1948, and, in addition, to provide for the protection of areas in which special measures are required to control the activities of persons who are in those areas.

What the Bill therefore provides, Sir, is that the Chief Secretary may declare any premises or any area to be a protected place, or a protected area, as the case may be, if he considers it necessary or expedient in the case of any premises or any place to prevent the entry of unauthorised persons into that place; and if in the case of an area he considers it necessary or expedient to control the movement or conduct of persons within that area.

Sir, the consequence of such a declaration by the Chief Secretary is that, in the case of a protected place, special permission is required before a person may enter and in the case of both protected places and protected areas, any guard on duty is empowered to fire if necessary on any person attempting to enter, or who is in a protected place or area, if that person fails to stop after being challenged three times.

Under the Bill, Sir, too, there is a further power conferred on the Chief Secretary - and I am referring to clause 9. The Chief Secretary, Members will see if they care to look at that clause, is empowered to authorise the use of methods of protection for any protected place or area which may involve danger to life to persons entering or attempting to enter.

Sir, there are numbers of premises in Singapore which require special measures for their protection of the kind provided by this Bill, and this protection, Sir, has been found to be very effective in the past.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise not to speak against the Bill but to point out that sometimes powers which are given in this way can be abused. When they are, they have very unfortunate repercussions, and the person against whom the powers have been used in an improper way loses all confidence in the whole process of law.

I like to bring to the attention of whoever may be responsible for gazetting these protected places, a particular incident which arose in the case of the recent City Council strike. It concerns the City Council gas works which, quite properly, is a protected place. In a corner of the gas works is a block where some 20 to 25 families reside. They work in the gas works and they are completely fenced off from it. There is a concrete wall which cuts them off from the gas works, a wall in which there is a solid steel gate. There is also a corrugated metal fence, fencing the quarters from the road.

Sir, ordinarily a person who works in the gas works and occupies these quarters has to go to his place of employment not through that special steel gate, which seals him off from the gas works, but he goes out through the normal corrugated fencing gate, goes round to the front along Kallang Road, and then enters the gas works. When he finishes his work, he goes out by the main gas works gate and then back to his quarters.

When the strike began, the employers sealed off the quarters from the road. They closed the corrugated fencing gate and opened the steel gate which was in the middle of this concrete wall between the quarters and the gas works, and no worker who was on strike could leave his quarters, or, having left the quarters and gone out, was allowed to return.

Now, Sir, it was a fine point, first, whether or not the quarters form part of the protected area; and, in fact, the employers tried to bluff their way through and said: "Well, it is part of the protected area." Of course, had that point got known to the workers - that protected areas and boundaries of protected areas were elastic things which could be pushed backwards and forwards as the employers choose - then I would say the result would have been unfortunate, to say the least. An injunction was threatened against the City Council for preventing their men who were on strike from going back. Their solicitors were consulted. The question whether they were licensees or tenants arose; and very fortunately just at about the time when action was going to be taken which would have brought quite a lot of publicity to this high-handed action, which was quite unlawful, the strike was settled.

The point is that it is important that when a piece of legislation has given certain powers to a Government department or a Government official, these powers should not be abused in any circumstances. If they are, then you are likely to bring the whole process of your legislation and your whole process of law into disrepute.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): I would like to make one comment, Mr Speaker, Sir, on the very admirable speech which the Member for Tanjong Pagar has just made, because I do feel that he has gone a little bit too far.

He has himself just demonstrated that the legislative process can take note of wrong or doubtful actions by employers. He has raised a most interesting point with reference to this corrugated gate that was sealed off, and - correct me if I am wrong, Mr Speaker - it is within the power of any Member of this House to raise any matter of that sort by way of a question or a motion or in other ways to bring it before the Legislature and have public attention drawn to it and, if necessary, to get the assent of the House for necessary action. There is no reason for saying that the whole democratic process is brought into contempt because some junior official has acted in a foolish way. It is this House that has the over-riding authority and can control the junior official.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: They were going to extend the boundary! Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: Committee stage, what day?

Mr Butterfield: 12th October, Sir.