CIVIL LAW (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.22 a.m.

The Attorney-General (Mr C. H. Butterfield): Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Civil Law Ordinance which this Bill is designed to amend provides, generally, in section 12, that a claim for damages may be made for the benefit of the family of a deceased person where his death has been caused by the wrongful act, neglect or fault of another. And that section, Sir, goes on to provide that a claim of that kind must be brought within 12 months of the date of death. Sir, the Ordinance also provides that where the deceased has an executor or administrator, and no action for damages has been brought by the executor or the administrator for the benefit of the family of the deceased within six months of the date of death, such an action can be brought by any of the members of the family of the deceased, on whose behalf the executor or administrator might have sued.

Sir, the period of 12 months to which I have referred is considered to be too short, and it is proposed by this Bill to extend that period of 12 months to one of three years. Sir, if that amendment is made, the result would be that this provision of our law will be brought into line with the corresponding legislation of the United Kingdom on which this particular part of our law is based. In the United Kingdom, Sir, I think it was in 1954 that the period of 12 months was extended to one of three years by an amendment to the United Kingdom law.

Another effect, Sir, of extending this period from one of 12 months to one of three years will be to make the period of limitation in cases of this kind the same as that which applies in the case of actions for damages for personal injury.

With regard to the period of six months to which I referred a moment ago, that is the period within which the members of a family cannot sue if there is an executor or administrator of the deceased, with regard to that period, this also is considered to be somewhat too short. This is because it not infrequently happens that more than six months elapse before letters of administration are issued, and until then the administrator cannot bring any action. As I have said, Sir, the amendment proposed by the Bill is to increase that period from one of six months to a period of one year.

I do not think, Sir, that there is anything which I can usefully add to what I have said about this Bill. It is a very short measure but I think Members would like to know that it has the support of the legal profession in Singapore. I would also like to say that I am indebted to the Member for Cairnhill who, a little while ago, suggested to me that it was time that our law was amended on the lines I have indicated.

I hope, Sir, that this measure will be acceptable to hon. Members on both sides of this House, and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question proposed.

11.26 a.m.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I heartily support this Bill. It will be a very dreadful thing if the person who suffered a loss in his family through accident is unable to claim compensation because of one year's limitation and the fault was due to some negligence of his executor or ignorance of the members of his family. I say that this amendment is long overdue, and we on this side offer our strongest support.

Mr Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, as you are no doubt aware, this is an amendment I had hoped to introduce and I am very happy the Government has adopted it and improved it. It arises from the realisation that in this colony there are many who are not literate in the English language and who are not conscious of their rights, and it is only many months after the death of a member of a family due to the negligence of some other person that members of the family of the deceased are made conscious of their right to claim damages. It is then often found, Sir, that, due also to the delays in obtaining letters of administration, they are estopped by the provisions of the Civil Law Ordinance from pursuing their claims - quite unnecessarily estopped. There is no magic in the 12 months and in the six months.

I say in fairness to insurance companies that quite often they have settled claims although made out of time, but, Sir, the position is an unsatisfactory one where you have to depend on the indulgence of commercial concerns like insurance companies. The amendments here sought merely increase the time so as to give a reasonable time to the dependants of victims of traffic accidents.

I do not know whether the learned Attorney-General did mention it, but I think I should add that these amendments have in fact taken place in the English law about three years ago.

I am happy to support this Bill.

11.29 a.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, it used to be a game among solicitors who appeared for insurance companies to dilly-dally with the inexperienced solicitor who appeared for the poor dependants of the deceased, keep him hoping and waiting until the six months is up and the axe has fallen, and then smartly suggest to the inexperienced solicitor that he had better watch out for a suit for damages for negligence for having allowed the limitation period to elapse.

We support this amendment because the man-made law which says that after a year the estate of the person should either sue or not sue is unnecessary. But I am concerned that legislation of this nature has to await the personal initiative, the personal flair of individuals. Our legislation is mainly based on English legislation. Our legislation is usually introduced several years after that legislation on which it is modelled has been working successfully in England. But it seems that that is the end of the matter, In innumerable instances, social conditions change and the law in England is changed to meet changed conditions. But the law in Singapore goes on without any change. Is there no committee, is there no machinery, that keeps the law of Singapore up to date? Take, for instance, the question of contributory negligence and the doctrine of common employment. They were two principles of law which obtained in England and obtained in this Colony. They were iniquitous. The doctrine of common employment said that if you are killed or injured as a result of the negligence of your fellow-worker, who is in common employment with you, then you have no remedy against your employer because you are deemed to have undertaken the risk of injury by that fellow-worker. That doctrine was abolished when the British Labour Party assumed office after the end of the Second World War. But it was not till some seven or eight years later that some enterprising lawyer lobbied the bar and the Attorney-General, and finally got it through in Singapore. But the enterprising lawyer had this interest because he represented many such clients who were often debarred from recovering damages because of this doctrine.

I have cited two instances to show that the position is unsatisfactory, that amendments and the bringing of our law up to date should not depend upon spasmodic and haphazard amendments - that there should be some machinery to keep the law all the time up to date. I think it should not be beyond the Attorney-General's Department, in conjunction with the Legal Department of the Colonial Office, to supply Singapore with information on the progress of Bills, Acts of Parliament, that have taken place since those Acts were adopted by the Government.

Mr C. H. Butterfield rose-

Mr Speaker: Mr Attorney-General, in reply?

Mr Butterfield: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to follow in reply the points raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar on general questions relating to bringing our legislation up to date, but I would like to say this, that I will give full consideration to what he has said. I would like also to add this, that of course so far as I am concerned, I shall always welcome any suggestions which the profession may wish to make through the Bar Committee. I shall welcome suggestions of that kind, and of course they will be of the greatest assistance to me. It can frequently happen, of course, Sir, that the Bar Committee which represents the profession here is frequently in touch with perhaps a number of aspects of legislation which do not come my way, so to speak, and of course in that sort of matter, matters affecting members of the profession, it would be helpful if they would make suggestions to me. But of course this is a little wide of the matter with which we are here concerned, and I do not think that there is any other point which I wish to deal with today.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time