CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

10.04 a.m.

The Chief Secretary (Mr E. B. David): Mr Speaker, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by His Excellency the Governor in respect of the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill.

Certificate of Urgency handed in.

Mr Speaker: The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Mr David: Yes, Sir.

Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

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

Sir, hon. Members will be aware of the growing public concern at the increase in gangsterism and secret society activities of recent months, and as indicated in the Governor's speech on 9th April, the Government considers it imperative to strengthen the laws by which these activities can be more effectively countered. The majority of these crimes are committed by individual gangsters or by gangs of thugs, who expect to retain all the proceeds or nearly all the proceeds of their crimes and look only to their parent secret societies - if I may put it that way - for protection from prosecution and for protection against rival gangs. These gangs hold sway in their own particular areas, where they organise gambling, smuggling, vice and extortion rackets of different kinds. They provoke gang fights and they intimidate the law-abiding public into the payment of protection money. Their hold, Sir, is such as to frighten the public from giving evidence against them, and their efforts to control each other's activities very often lead to violent clashes between different gangs.

It is regrettably true, Sir, that in 1957, the number of gang fights, which was 150, was more than in all the three previous years put together, and that figure has not - regrettably - decreased this year since there have been 68 such fights in the first three months of this year.

The majority of the members of these gangs are under 30 years of age and mostly, as far as we know, are born in Singapore. It directly reflects the serious social and economic problems presented by the great increase in Singapore's population since the War, problems which are receiving the earnest attention of the Government but which are not easy or susceptible to an early solution. The causes of this delinquency can be eradicated over a period of years only by improvement of economic and social conditions and by active youth welfare and educational work.

The Government is doing all in its power to further these aims but in the meantime the immediate need is to preserve the peace of the Colony and to protect the law-abiding public from the criminal activities of these gangsters. In this, Sir, the police, the public and the Courts all have a part to play. The police require the support and the confidence of the public not only in providing information of actual crimes and projected crimes, but also in willingness to come forward and to give evidence against those responsible. The Courts, for their part, can only administer the laws enacted by the Legislature and it is for this Assembly to ensure that they are armed with the laws and the sanctions which the present situation requires.

Sir, the existing provisions in the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance whereby a sentence of corrective training or preventive detention can only be imposed on proof of membership of, or connection with, an unlawful society, has not proved as effective as had been hoped, even though special provision is made in section 6 to facilitate evidence of such membership. In a number of such cases in which charges are brought of offences particularly associated with the activities of secret societies, there has not been the proof required in relation to membership of the secret society and it has not therefore proved possible to invoke the provisions of this Ordinance. The purpose of clause 2 of this amending Bill is to remedy that position and to provide the Courts with a wider discretion than they at present have in applying the provisions of this Ordinance, by removing the condition precedent that membership of, or connection with, an unlawful society must be proved in addition to the conviction.

Another important amendment, Sir, to the principal Ordinance is in clause 3 of the Bill which empowers the arrest of any person found in the immediate vicinity of, or escaping from, any place in which a disturbance is occurring or has recently occurred, or any place where a disturbance, according to information received by the police, is likely to take place, and any person who is reasonably suspected of being connected with a secret society. Such a person can be required, under this provision, by a Court to show cause why he should not be ordered to sign a bond to keep the peace.

Power is also given to the Courts to impose a curfew order on such a person. For breach of the bond or the order, such a person will be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or to a fine not exceeding $1,000, or to both such imprisonment and fine.

At present, Sir, it often happens that the police, arriving at the scene of a planned clash, in time to prevent it, or arriving shortly after one has occurred, find persons present whom they have good reason to know are the fighter elements of the secret societies concerned, but short of catching them in actual possession of offensive weapons, the police are powerless since witnesses from the neighbourhood are not prepared to come forward to give evidence.

I should like, Sir, to emphasise on this particular clause that it is not intended that this power should be used in any arbitrary manner. Moreover, the clause provides that the police must take the individual before the Court and it is provided in the following clause that the provisions of section 80 of the Criminal Procedure Code shall apply to an enquiry by the Court under this clause. And section 80 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where such an order has been made and a person appears or is brought before a Court in compliance with or in execution of a summons or warrant, the Court shall proceed to enquire into the truth of the information upon which it is acting, and to take such further evidence as appears necessary. Such enquiry shall be made as nearly as is practicable in the manner hereof prescribed for conducting trials in summary cases, etc.

Sir, I suggest to hon. Members that although this is an exceptional power of arrest, a safeguard against injustice to innocent people is amply provided for by the provisions which ensure that there shall be a proper enquiry before a Court before anyone is required to execute a bond as provided in this clause.

Sir, the final amendment to the principal Ordinance is in clause 4 of the Bill which adds the offences of carrying knives or offensive weapons in public, loitering with intent to commit a seizable offence and offences under the Corrosive Substances Ordinance, 1956, to the list of scheduled offences under the principal Ordinance. The reason for this, Sir, is that these are the types of offences which are frequently committed by persons associated with gang warfare. Hon. Members will be aware of the ingenuity shown by these gangsters in devising and concealing weapons which are capable of killing their victims or maiming them for life, and of the increasing use in recent months of the particularly vicious weapon of acid bombs.

Sir, I believe it will be the wish of all hon. Members of this Assembly to see the scourge of gang warfare wiped out from our midst. The legislation now proposed is designed to further that purpose and no more. I have every hope that, with the co-operation of the public, which I am glad to say is increasing daily, this legislation will strengthen the organs of law and order in removing this menace from our midst.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

10.19 a.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am happy that the Government has now given consideration to an amending Bill to tighten the activities of secret societies, first, in amending this Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance and following on, the Penal Code Ordinance. I believe that this is the result of the question filed by me, which was answered by the Chief Secretary yesterday. Without that question I doubt that the Government would ever have considered amending these two Ordinances.

Every day we hear of gang clashes, gang fights and secret society activities, and of innocent people or innocent citizens being victimised and assaulted. Unless these gang clashes by secret societies are stopped immediately, I am afraid that the Government machinery will cease to be effective and is bound to collapse.

In principle, Sir, the Bill is a good one and I should say that it merits the support of every sane and sensible Member of this House. But, Sir, however much I would like to support it, I am more anxious about its application when it becomes law. It would appear that there are cases when the police can be very fair, but also other cases when the police can abuse the powers of investigation given to them. We need not go very far for an example, Sir. Even the application of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance is subject to abuse. Just look at the complaints of torture received by Members of this Assembly which have prompted me to table a motion that will be debated at a later hour today or sometime tomorrow.

What is there, Sir, to prevent an innocent person being dragged in for nothing under this Bill? Clause 3 is very delicate and I am sure that everyone, including the Chief Secretary, will agree that there are loopholes in it for abuse. Clause 3 reads:

"The principal Ordinance is hereby amended by inserting immediately after section 3 thereof, the following new section:

3A.-(l) Where a police officer not below the rank of Inspector-

(i) on receipt of information which he considers to be reliable that a disturbance is likely to occur in any place proceeds to such place and finds in the immediate vicinity thereof or departing therefrom, or

(ii) finds in the immediate vicinity of, or departing from, any place in which a disturbance is occurring or has recently taken place.....

Sir, the Chief Secretary said just now that if a person is present somewhere near a disturbance that has taken place, then a police inspector, or anybody above the rank of inspector, who has reason to believe that any person found there have connections with such disturbance, have got powers of arrest. But much as I would like to say I have confidence in the police force, may I mention that most of the junior police officers or detectives were themselves members of secret societies before they joined the force? I think they form a majority, although I see the Minister for Education shaking his head; he himself must be fully aware of that. That being the case, Sir, it may be that if there is an old grudge, this Bill will come in very handy to them. An innocent person may be going across a road or walking along one where a disturbance has just occurred. What is there to prevent him from being arrested or at least being subject to interrogation, thus wasting his time and also the good and valuable time of the police themselves?

Sir, unless there are safeguards against such possible victimisations, and the police force has gone through a thorough cleaning, I am afraid that there will be loopholes for abuse. The Chief Secretary said just now that there are safeguards, under section 80 of the Ordinance, I think - I did not catch him properly. That may be so, but such arbitrary powers given to the police cannot in fact be well safeguarded under a section of an Ordinance; there should be fuller provisions about using the discretion to make arrests.

If the Government can assure me that such safeguards exist and that the powers will not be abused by police officers who may at times have no discretion about arrest, I am prepared to support the Bill.

10.25 a.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are all aware that gangsterism has taken control in Singapore in many aspects of life. The enquiry into corrupt practices has given us an insight into the secret societies' influence over the public. We must eradicate this and substitute it by better law and order; we must give the police a greater measure of power to enable them to protect innocent people.

If a question is put forward to me, Would you like to have the powers in the hands of the secret societies, or in the hands of the police?', I would definitely say: We want the powers to be in the hands of the police - but just sufficient powers to enable them to protect us and no more, so that they will not be in a position to misuse them'.

Certainly, Sir, this Bill goes a long way to helping the people get rid of secret societies. But whilst we want to get rid of the secret societies, we also want to protect innocent people. They have every right to be protected. We do not want to see an innocent man hauled into a police station, kept there for 24 hours or made to appear before the police court, and after that released. The inconvenience he has to undergo would be sufficient to make him feel that the police is not his friend.

No doubt there has been a great deal of explanation as to how this Bill will be operated when it becomes law; no doubt there are safeguards in section 80 of the Criminal Procedure Code. But I would like the Press, especially, to put it over to the people how this law will operate - that unless they are criminals or secret society gangsters, they will not be hauled in by the police.

At the same time, I think the Chief Secretary should give detailed instructions as to how this law should be enforced. Every known secret society member should be hauled in, but anybody who is reasonably regarded as not being a secret society member should be given the benefit of the doubt. I know that whether a person is in the secret society movement or not is well known to the police. They have a record of secret society members. They also have an unofficial record of secret society members. If arrests are made and cases brought before the Courts after the police have consulted all these records, nothing much will go wrong.

But if an inspector acts on just suspicion and uses his own discretion, there might be cases where old scores may be squared. We must avoid this. No old scores should be squared. This law is meant for the purpose of keeping law and order and it should remain so.

I say this, Sir, because I know that whenever a raid is being carried out, a police inspector will take out a dozen or more men to the scene. The inspector would be there but the arrests would be made by the constables and detectives. They may be within sight of the inspector, or out of his sight, but the inspector would have to stand up for his men on such cases.

I would ask the Government to give to the police and to every individual officer minute instructions as to how this law should be operated, in order to safeguard the innocent. We are all against secret society members. We want them to be cleaned up but, at the same time, we ask that the innocent be protected and not be inconvenienced.

10.30 am.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, despite my hearty support of this amendment, yet I wish to stress a few points. This amending Bill appears to be very effective medicine to cure a very dangerous disease - gangsterism; but in using a very effective drug to cure a dangerous disease, we must be very careful.

The Member for Queenstown as well as the Member for Serangoon touched upon abuse of powers by police officers in applying the law which we are now going to enact. Sir, we all respect police inspectors, yet as I pointed out yesterday about the C.I.D. organisation, should not the Government realise that an inspector can easily be misled into abusing powers? I do not say that inspectors will abuse the powers straightaway, but that they may be misled into abusing them, especially as many of our new inspectors are fresh from school with only a School Certificate and three years' training. Then the whole source of his information is the detectives, and I invited the Chief Secretary yesterday to come out with me into the street to see how many people have faith in detectives.

One of the clauses in the Bill reads, ".. the inspector on receipt of information which he considers to be reliable..". The inspectors rely on the detectives' information and consider that reliable. However, I have had bitter experience about this in the past, and I think every other Member here must have had one or two also. I remember a night not long ago when there was a wayang play in Chai Chee Village. That night from 10 p.m. my telephone kept ringing. Why? Hawkers and farmers had been arrested and confined in Joo Chiat Police Station. Many of them I knew personally, especially one fishmonger who had to get up at about 3 am to go to the fish market to get fish to sell in Changi Market. Yet he was arrested.

I contacted the police - by telephone of course - and they said that they had received information of an expected gang fight at the wayang. I dressed up and went to the vicinity of the wayang. And there I saw a few notorious gangsters whom I knew were active gangsters taking kwayteow, sitting around and drinking beer near the stage, while poor innocent farmers and fishermen were in the police station!

Sir, that is the sort of thing which has taught me bitter lessons. Why should it happen? As I told the House yesterday, it is because the head of the gangsters is well known to the detectives and they have a relationship. They can dine and drink together in public restaurants and open bars. Can the public have faith in detectives when they see the law executors drinking and dining with notorious gangsters in a kampong or a street?

Sir, therefore I strongly put over this point to the Government: try to find a remedy to prevent the police from being misled into abusing powers which this House and the country entrust to them. Only by so doing can they hope to make the detective organisation more effective, more respected and more trustworthy.

Besides relying on detectives, uniformed inspectors also rely much on the police. In the past - I do not know what the reason is - everybody used to say, "Oh, the Chinese, because of their tradition, do not like the soldiers and therefore they do not like to be policemen". So many of our constables have been recruited from the Malays; worst of all, they have been recruited from Federation Malays. There is therefore not only the language barrier between them and the people, but also differences in traditions and customs. How then can you make the police become a good, reliable friend of the people, as I think it is a basic idea to have the people have faith and trust in the police force? Therefore unless the plainclothes and uniformed police can be completely re-organised into an effective and respected machinery, I am sure this amending Bill will be only just a waste of time.

Sir, I am putting this point now for the Government, not only for the Chief Secretary: if we believe in the proverb that prevention is better than cure, we must think of ways how not to make it necessary to arrest and prosecute a person. Why do the police not consider certain measures before a thing is going to happen - by persuasion, by constant visits to the family of a suspected criminal, by improving the relationship between them and the public? We know - and I think the Chief Secretary knows better than anybody else here - that in many countries in the world the policeman is the best friend of the youngsters and adults alike. They take part in any community activity. Why not here? Here we have a very bad tradition. When children start crying, their parents often say, `Stop crying. Mata mata datang!' That makes the police out to be a terror, not a friend. They know all the bad hats in the area yet they only watch and wait and only start arresting when they begin to commit crimes. Sir, I do not think that is a good practice.

Mr Speaker: Order. I quite agree that perhaps it is not a good practice, but is not the hon. Member straying a little too far from the Bill itself? Is he relevant?

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, that was my concluding point - that I consider this amending Bill to be defective medicine. Therefore I put forward the moral of the proverb that prevention is better than cure, that it is better to adopt certain new measures to prevent crimes happening rather than be ready to arrest and prosecute only after the crimes have been committed.

Sir, I beg and am forced to support this amendment.

10.40 a.m.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): Mr Speaker, Sir, a few years back we did not require such a Bill to amend the law whereby, may I quote clause 3,", a police officer not below the rank of inspector on receipt of information which he considers to be reliable...can ...". A few years back we did not require these extra powers for the police. The problem now is that in the rank and file of the police force, there is now frustration, disappointment and discontent. Why do I say this? If you were to be seated in the C.I.D. building today, Sir, you will see many police officers, detectives, the rank and file, each and every one of whom is frustrated. Only a few days back, I understand a circular went out to all senior detectives directing that if they did not make an arrest or supply information to senior police officers in the force, their services would be terminated or they would be transferred to other branches of the force.

This is dictatorial. Just think of a police officer who has been in the force for years and years; on receipt of such an instruction, what can he do? As we all know, most of the detectives in the force were all ex-members of secret societies, so that instruction will force them to make arrests or to supply information against their own enemies in other branches of the secret societies. Why do I say that, Sir? Only recently, the police introduced "Operation Dagger", under which thousands and thousands of people, innocent people, suffered. Walk along the streets and I am quite sure you will meet people with tattoo marks all over their bodies blackened. These blackened tattoo marks are for ever impressed on their bodies. This is what I call injustice. Just because you have a tattoo mark on your body. I mean a mark which is related to one of the insignias of a secret society, for example, a tattoo mark of a man fighting a tiger - in Chinese they call it Boo Siong pah haw - according to the records of the C.I.D., the Boo Siong pah haw mark belongs to Gang 18, you are a member of a secret society. That is rubbish - [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr William Tan: Sir, that is rubbish. Take other examples: if you have a Red Indian head on your body, they say you belong to Gang 24; a sailing boat on the body, Gang 24; a black panther, Gang 24; a Goddess of Mercy. Gang 108; an eagle fighting a snake, Gang 108. Why not arrest the soldiers and sailors who have these similar marks? I am quite sure many people, innocent people, have these marks on their bodies.

Mr Speaker: Order. I was just wondering whether a detailed exposition of that nature is suitable for a debate on this Bill. I think the hon. Member will have an opportunity, when we continue with the debate on the Governor's Speech, to attack the police as such, but in this particular Bill I think details of that nature are really perhaps going a bit too far.

Mr William Tan: That I will do so, Sir.

As I said just now, there is discontentment because we have people among the higher ranks of the police force favouring the other blue-eyed boys in the force. Therefore many members of the force, the rank and file, are very disappointed, discontented and frustrated.

I personally feel that this amending Bill is not necessary.

10.45 a.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): It should be on the record, Sir, that the operative word for the speech of the Member for Tiong Bahru on this amending Bill is that it is not necessary. Probably some of his friends will be very pleased to hear it.

Sir, there are two distinct ways in which one could approach this Bill. First, the stand of the unsophisticated democrats - the rule of law, evidence corroborated beyond all reasonable doubt. When we try to bring the standards and patterns of law and order from some foreign land which does not suit the realities of our local conditions, then the result will be chaos. The democratic system cannot be transplanted wholesale. Neither can its rules, laws and enactments be repeated without amendment. The first question is how do we eradicate the source, the economic and the social causes which the Chief Secretary very lightly touched upon. As long as the social and economic forces are there, there will be an endless stream of recruits for secret societies, not only for the purposes of extortion, but also for the purposes of overthrowing the existing order. The second question is, until we have achieved that objective, what do we do about it?

Now, Sir, the Japanese had a very effective way of dealing with it-they just potong kepala; and I do not think anybody doubts that it was a very effective method. I do not think the people of Singapore, or indeed in Malaya, ever lived through a more difficult or a more trying period than the three-and-a-half years of the Japanese occupation, and yet gangsterism was nil; because there were swaggering sergeants with long swords who made a habit of using them. And terror was used as a weapon to a point where it was not worth the feeding of a chicken to have one's head chopped off. I think many of us here still remember the grisly heads that were stuck up on all the bridges in Singapore just to remind the people that there was such a thing called law and order with the Japanese samurai sword.

That is one way: you just knock down the other fellow, never mind about evidence and so on; never mind even if you knock out four innocent chaps to get one guilty one. But more important is that you terrify all the rest of the guilty ones to a point where they think it is not worth their fun.

The other way I have only read about. I have not seen it at first hand, but I am told that if you try to be a teddy boy in Moscow, then you will not last very long. There are people who want to find out what your employment is, what you are doing, and why you are not doing anything and yet have so many of the good things in life. Very soon you find yourself in a healthy camp where you do very good work, and get yourself re-orientated into the right way of thinking, that the purpose in life is not to try and cheat your way out of society, but to work hard and contribute to it.

Sir, somewhere between these two extremes, we have to find our solution. I am not in a position to say, not being in possession of detailed information of the probable habits and reactions of these secret society gangsters, whether a Bill of this nature will meet our needs. Certainly something has got to be done about it. The problem is to find some method which can be an effective counter, and can, to a certain extent, deter people from embarking on hazardous occupations such as secret society gangsterism, without being turned into a weapon of terror.

I heard this morning, pass unchallenged, the statement that police inspectors were ex-secret society members. That, I think, is going a little bit too far. We all know, particularly those of us who by their profession have something to do with the Courts, and have to hear the evidence of detectives and inspectors, that it is not true to say that police inspectors have been ex-secret society members. But it is unfortunately true that there are very often ex-secret society members as detectives in the police force. The inspectors quite frankly tell us that you need a thief to catch another thief, and a monkey to catch another monkey, because if you cannot climb a tree and the other monkey can, you are left behind.

That being so, all we can do is no more than exhort the Government to see that a great deal of care and supervision are maintained in order that there should not be corruption - not just financial corruption but general corruption in discipline and morale - where reliance is placed on the evidence of purely ex-secret society gangsters in order to get present secret society gangsters. But other than broad statements of principle, I do not think anybody in this House is in a position to say whether this Bill really answers the need. All we can say is, we hope that Ministers have given careful consideration to it, and we hope that it will answer the need.

10.51 am.

Mr David: Sir, I welcome the general support that has been forthcoming for this Bill with one exception. The hon. Member for Queenstown suggested that, as a result of his question put down for answer in this Assembly yesterday, the Government had moved extremely quickly. I appreciate the bouquet which he is giving for the speed with which Government can move, but I am afraid I must tell him that this Bill was in preparation for some time before he put his question down.

I do not propose, Sir, to answer now the accusations which have been made as to certain elements in the police force, and to certain abuses of their powers. That is a matter which as you yourself have said, Sir, has been raised on the debate on the Governor's Speech, and I shall be having something to say when that debate is resumed.

As regards the general provisions of this Bill, I am entirely in concurrence with the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar that what we have to do broadly is to try and find the proper balance between the necessary protection of innocent persons against abuse of authority and affording to the police, who have the responsibility of bringing these criminals to justice, the necessary powers to enable them to do so. No Government, and certainly not this Government, would wish to give the police or anybody else more powers than are necessary to discharge their functions. Wherever power or authority is vested, there is room for abuse, and that is a fact which must be recognised. I do assure hon. Members with regard to the application of the provisions of this Bill that I shall personally concern myself with the application of these provisions and endeavour to ensure that there is no abuse of the powers with which I hope the Assembly is now prepared to vest the police.

There were two minor points raised, Sir, in connection with the wording of the Bill. One hon. Member referred to the provision in clause 3A (1) (i) that "on receipt of information which he considers to be reliable" and suggested that since that information came from a detective, it was to be suspect - I must point out to him that that provision refers only to information that a disturbance is likely to take place; that provision has nothing to do with the arrest or the grounds of arrest of any person. That is provided later in the clause where it is specifically stated that the police officer not below the rank of inspector has to have reason to suspect that the individual concerned is connected with an unlawful society, and that is a matter of identification. And as I explained in moving the Second Reading, the inspector will have to produce and support the grounds on which he has made his arrest when he brings the individual before the Court.

Sir, I have nothing further to add.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Mr David].

Bill considered in Committee.

10.56 a.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2-

The Chairman: There appear to be two alterations to this clause. I take it that hon. Members have copies with similar alterations.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.