CRIMINAL LAW (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

2.31 p.m.

The Chief Secretary (Mr E. B. David): Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Hon. Members will need a little reminder from me of the current situation in regard to the enforcement of law and order in Singapore due to the activities of secret societies. Every day they pick up their newspapers and read of gang fights or other crimes committed by members of these gangs in pursuit of their object of terrorising the law-abiding people in this island. Moreover, there has of recent weeks, as hon. Members will be aware, a serious increase in this form of crime owing to two groups of these societies having come into violent conflict.

This is only the culmination of a steady increase in gangsterism over a period of time and which has led to the adoption of a number of measures with the approval of this House which it was hoped would have enabled the police to reassert the authority of the law and bring the criminals to justice or at least to restrict their activities. I should like to give the House some statistics to show not only the steady increase in this form of crime which has been going on for some time, but also the serious deterioration which has taken place recently. In 1954, there were 30 secret society gang fights; in 1955, there were 24; in 1956, there were 25; in 1957, there were 150; and in the first six months of this year, there were 157 - double the rate for last year. Even allowing for the fact that a change of classification came into being last year and certain minor fights which had previously been classified as affrays are now brought into the category of secret society gang fights, hon. Members will see that there has been a very serious rise in this type Of crime. During the six weeks since 1st July this year, there have been not only 51 gang fights, but also six murders, either committed in the course of these fights or for reasons concerned with membership of those societies. In addition, the incidence of house-breaking and thefts in 1958 has been double that of previous years.

Sir, the first question which naturally has to be answered is why cannot the police, whose duty it is, detect the criminals and bring them before the Courts to be dealt with under the ordinary law of the land? Hon. Members are, I know, already aware of the difficulties with which the police are faced, but I should like to repeat them in order to explain why the Government feels it necessary to seek the special powers which are embodied in the Bill before the House.

When a crime is committed, whether it be a gang fight, an assault or a murder, those who are responsible do not commit their crimes before the eyes of the police so enabling the police not only to arrest the offenders there and then, but also to furnish eye-witness evidence to bring a charge before the Court. On the contrary, they take very good care to ensure that there are no police officers present before they embark on a crime. The police consequently only obtain knowledge of the crime some time and, in certain cases, a quite considerable time, after it has been committed. The perpetrators have disappeared and the only method of detection open to the police is to question those members of the public who may have been witnesses to the crime or for some other reason have knowledge of it. This interrogation, coupled with any deductions which can be made from any material evidence to be found at the scene of the crime, is the only way of obtaining information which may lead to identifying the criminals. They have in addition their own knowledge, culled over a period of time, of the members of the secret societies involved - who are the fighters and so on - but that is of little value when it comes to the second stage of the proceedings, which is to bring the accused persons before a Court and produce first-hand evidence to satisfy the Court that the persons are guilty of the offence with which they are charged.

At both stages of this procedure - detection and prosecution - it has unfortunately to be recognised that they seldom receive the assistance from members of the public to which they are entitled and without which it is quite impossible for them to carry out their task. The reason is a simple one - that those concerned are too frightened of reprisals from other members of the gang if they furnish any information which would lead to the arrest of a member of the gang.

These gangs have in short succeeded in establishing a very widespread form of terrorism which inhibits the law-abiding citizen from carrying out his duty in assisting in the enforcement of the law. Even if they are prepared, as they sometimes are prepared, to provide information in secret in such a way that they are satisfied that it will not become known that they have done so, nothing will induce them to stand up and give their evidence in open court or in the presence of the accused persons.

In these circumstances, there is little if anything the police can do to detect and prosecute the criminals. They can only exercise the limited powers open to them in other directions - to have members of unlawful societies placed on record under the Societies Ordinance, or, in a very limited number of cases where they can produce sufficient material to satisfy the Court, to have them bound over under the provision in the law to which the House assented earlier this year.

But these measures are only palliatives and, as is apparent from the events of the last few weeks, are quite inadequate to stem the rising tide of lawlessness. It is in these circumstances that the Government has decided that more drastic steps must be taken to protect the public from the activities of these gangs, and that since, for the reasons I have given, it is not possible to achieve that protection through the normal judicial processes of the Courts, these safeguards, which are adequate in ordinary times, must, in the present abnormal crime-wave, be supplemented by executive action. It is not only the duty of the Government to do this in discharge of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and good order, but I believe that there is a wide public demand that such action should be taken and that it will meet with wholehearted support from all law-abiding members of the community.

The powers, Sir, which it is sought to take under this Bill, to detain for a limited period without trial, are designed to be used against the ringleaders of these gangs and those who are primarily responsible for their activities. I would emphasise that it is not intended to use these powers indiscriminately. They will be used selectively to break the gang organisation and to remove the leaders to a place where they can no longer coerce the less vicious members of their gangs as well as the general public. As the House knows, one of the worst features of the present situation is the extent to which young boys have been drawn into the coils of these organisations, in the long run this trend can be countered by measures to direct the leisures and energies of our youths into useful and productive channels, but that is of no immediate help and the need is for effective action now.

Before I come, Sir, to the details of the Bill, I should like to touch briefly on two other matters. The first is that the necessary powers which it is now sought to take, I already exist under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, but the Government does not think it proper that they should be invoked for the present purpose, firstly, because that Ordinance was enacted for a different purpose and, secondly, because the Government considers it only proper that it should obtain the specific endorsement of the House to the use of executive powers to meet the current threat presented by these criminals.

The second matter to which I wish to refer, Sir, is the life of the parent Ordinance to which this Bill seeks to make amendments. As the House is aware, this Ordinance will lapse in two months' time. It is the intention of the Government to seek the approval of the House to an extension of the life of this Ordinance at the appropriate time. This will also give the House a further opportunity of considering these provisions in common with the other provision of the Ordinance.

I turn now, Sir, to the provisions of this Bill. The new Clause 47 empowers the Chief Secretary to make an order of detention for a period not exceeding six months. I have already given the House an assurance that this power will be used selectively and only for the purposes I have mentioned. It has, however, been represented to me since this Bill was drafted that the wording of the new clause 47 is exceptionally wide, and I do propose at the Committee stage to move an amendment to this clause with the object of relating it more restrictively to the persons against whom it is aimed. The amendment which I shall be moving to this clause is to insert, after "custody," in the fourth line of the new clause 47, the words "that such person has been associated with activities of a criminal nature and" that it is necessary, etc.

These powers, Sir, can be used selectively since the police have much information regarding the leadership and many of the members of these gangs even though they cannot bring that information before the Courts. The maximum period for the duration of an order is limited to six months since it is hoped that within that time it will have proved possible to break the back of this problem. Nevertheless, it is not possible to count on that measure of success, and provision is made, in new clause 50, for such orders to be extended by the Governor in Council.

The new clause 48 provides for every order made by the Chief Secretary to be referred within a period of 28 days to an Advisory Committee for report and recommendation. It is intended that the Committee, in discharging this task, should be at liberty to carry out the fullest enquiry, and every facility will be made available to enable it to do so. The report and recommendations of the Committee are finally considered by the Governor in Council, which has power to confirm or cancel the order.

New clause 49 provides for the suspension of orders on conditions. This provision, Sir, is very desirable in that it will facilitate releases at an earlier date than could otherwise be justified.

New clauses 51 and 52 provide for the appointment and functioning of the Advisory Committees. The Government has considered, Sir, whether provision should be made for one member of the Committee to have judicial qualifications, but the Government feels that this would be placing an undue burden on a limited class of persons many of whom are already carrying out other public duties. Nevertheless, if the House feels that this additional safeguard would be an important one, the Government would be prepared to accept a suitable amendment at the Committee stage.

Clause 53 is inserted to protect the sources of information where it is necessary.

Clause 54 provides for the custody and movement of detained persons.

Clause 55 gives the police power to arrest and hold persons in custody for a limited period, while any further necessary investigations are carried out before it is decided to apply for an order.

Clauses 56 and 57 concern powers of arrest in pursuance of these provisions.

Clause 58 should be read in conjunction with the provision in clause 47, that no order can be made without the consent of the Public Prosecutor. I have already given an assurance that these powers of detention will not be used indiscriminately. This provision is designed to ensure also that they will not be used as a substitute for prosecution in accordance with the ordinary processes of law. In any case where it is possible to bring a prosecution, it will be brought and, on the facts presented, the Public Prosecutor will not give his consent to an order unless he is satisfied that the individual concerned cannot be prosecuted.

Sir, there is one further minor amendment I shall be moving at the Committee stage, both to clauses 57 and 59. As these clauses are at present drafted, the powers conferred under them are applicable to all the provisions of the main Ordinance. It is not intended or desired to extend the powers of the police or the Government in relation to the other provisions of the Ordinance and I therefore propose to move an amendment which will have the effect of restricting the application of these two clauses to the new Part VII of the Ordinance which is contained in this Bill.

Finally, Sir, I should like to reiterate that it is only the exceptional gravity of the present state of gang lawlessness which compels the Government to seek these exceptional powers for immediate use. No democratic government will lightly curtail the liberty of any individual by executive action, nor would it wish to curtail that liberty for a moment longer than is absolutely necessary. This Government is no exception but when there is no other means of restoring peace and good order to the island, and removing the dark shadow of terrorism which is spreading over the lives of innocent citizens, then the Government has not only no alternative, but a positive duty to the public to take that action. So long as the public fails to give their full co-operation in the enforcement of the law, the ordinary judicial processes are stultified. So long as the criminals concerned cannot be brought to justice, the public will continue to live in fear, and that fear will inhibit their co-operation. This vicious circle must be broken.

With the slowly increasing mutual confidence between the police and the public following Police Week, and other measures to promote that confidence, there are encouraging signs, and information received by the police has resulted in the recovery of substantial quantities of weapons and other material stored away against gang fights. But this process is slow and it may well wither away if the present level of gang activity is allowed to continue. It needs a catalytic agent. I believe this measure will provide one, and I sincerely hope that if we can accelerate this process and prevail on the public to give more and more assistance to the police, it would not be very long before the conditions in which these gangsters can flourish will no longer obtain, the normal processes of law will once more be adequate to detect and punish crimes, and these special powers can be thankfully surrendered.

Sir, I beg to move.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Sir, I second the motion.

Question proposed.

2.53 p.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, when I read in the newspapers this morning that Government is to introduce legislation to give the police more powers to wipe out gangsterism, I was very happy and, with a determined mind, I came here to give full support. When I came to this sitting this morning, I was handed a copy of this Bill by the Hon, the Chief Secretary, but on reading through it, I felt rather disappointed and will now have to change my mind.

Although I am not a lawyer, while going through the contents of the Bill it appears to me that its wording is more or less identical with that of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. Sir, any extra powers to be given to the police to stamp out gangsterism should be most welcome to the public. I am sure everyone will support these extra powers because gangsterism has been on the rise recently. In fact Government should have introduced such powers long, long before. This Bill is long overdue. And if Government had done so, I am sure it would have saved a few lives. Within a period of only three months, we find that seven people were killed and a number of persons injured arising out of gangster or secret society clashes.

The people of Singapore must be happy to read that more than 70 people have now been arrested and detained, but when they come to know the contents of this Bill, I am sure they will feel as disappointed as I am.

An hon. Member: Hm! Hm!

Mr Lee Choon Eng: This is certainly true; there is no "Hm! Hm!" about it.

The police claim to know the identities of the big gangster chiefs, and even their hideouts. The police even have a list prepared of the wanted persons. What surprises the man in the street is this: that although the police know full well who the gangsters are and their hideouts, no action has been taken so far. Why all this delay?

According to a report in the newspapers, it appears to me that the police do have powers under section 12 of the Secret Society Ordinance. I have an extract here, Sir. Section 12 of the Secret Society Ordinance reads -

The Chief Minister (Dr Lim Yew Hock): Societies Ordinance.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Societies Ordinance - section 12 reads:

(1) Any person who is or acts as a member of an unlawful society, or attends a meeting of an unlawful society, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or to imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or to both.

(2) Every offence against the provisions of subsection (1) shall be deemed to be a non-bailable offence and a seizable case within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Sir, if the police do have powers under this section, why not introduce legislation to amend this Ordinance rather than introduce amendments in line with the provisions of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance? We can increase the term of imprisonment under the Societies Ordinance from six months to six years, or even to 10 years, 20 years, if the Chief Secretary, so desires.

Introducing an amending Bill of .this nature is most undemocratic. It is a departure from the principles of normal procedure that a man is not brought to court for open trial. The Preservation of Public Security Ordinance gives powers to the police to detain persons suspected of subversive activities. These offences I take to be political, but under the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Bill, powers are to be given to the police to deal with criminal offences. Gangsterism is a criminal offence, and there is a difference between the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and this Bill on criminal law, as explained by the Chief Secretary in moving the Second Reading. Why then, Sir, put the contents of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance into this Bill dealing with criminal offences?

When subversive elements are detained, it is a matter of political affairs and, may be for security reasons, the Government is not prepared to bring them to court for open trial. But where criminal offences are concerned, what is there to hide? If a person has committed a criminal offence, let us bring him to court for open trial and judge if he has in fact committed an offence. Democratic justice must be given to the accused and if anybody is arrested under any criminal law, he must be tried in open court and the matter should not be kept secret. If he is found guilty, the penalties, as I said, can be increased to imprisonment for any number of years that is deemed necessary.

If the Bill is accepted, Sir, may I say that there will be abuse or misuse by some police officers in enforcing or implementing it. The Chief Secretary has given an assurance that this Bill will be used selectively and that every care will be taken to implement it. In the past I have brought to the attention of the Government so many allegations of torture, of abuse of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. So if this Bill becomes law, I am afraid that the same thing will happen. There are still many people who are brought to the C.I.D., where they are subject to torture -

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): Nonsense!

Mr Lee Choon Eng: - though this has been denied by the Government. Whether it is right or wrong or whether it is true or not - "nonsense", I hear from the opposite Benches - it is left to the detainees and to the Government's conscience to say. I am not prepared to argue further on that.

What is there, then, to stop the police from arresting anybody? One day it may be the Chief Minister when he is no more Chief Minister, or may be I myself; the police officers concerned may have a grudge against one of us. By taking advantage of the provisions of this Bill, they will just pull us into the C.I.D.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I hope you get a walloping too!

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Oh, you hope! I certainly do not, but if I do I will know where the cause is - this Bill.

Sir, under the new clause 47, if the Chief Secretary is satisfied that a person is detrimental to the interests of good order, public safety or peace, then he can be detained. 'If the Chief Secretary is satisfied' - now, Sir, that will be a matter of opinion by the Chief Secretary. Who is there to argue against him? On many occasions in this House, we hear that this or that is just a matter of opinion. In this case, Sir, it is to be only a matter of opinion - the personal opinion of the Chief Secretary.

I must emphasise, Sir, that I am not actually against the introduction of any new legislation giving more powers to the police to stamp out this gangsterism. I am all for it. But what I am against is this: that a man is detained without open trial. Why should a man be detained without open trial? Give him a chance; where criminal cases are concerned, I say again that democratic justice must be shown. If he is really guilty of the offence, punish him as heavily as we can.

An hon. Member: As we can?

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Or as the Government can, or as the Court can - even the Government has no right to punish; it is for the Court to punish.

What is going to happen to the many schoolboys who are thrown out of school when they have completed Form IV? After reaching Form IV they will have to sit for an entrance examination to go into Form V, and if they fail that entrance examination they are denied further education. They will then be thrown on to the streets and so may be led into gang-land by gangsters or secret society organisations. The C.S. in framing this new legislation must have thought that where Europeans are concerned, there are very few European youths in this country, so he is not in the least interested. No European youth will be dragged in under the provisions of this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have no knowledge of a Member of the Assembly being named "C.S."

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I beg your pardon, Sir - I mean the Hon. the Chief Secretary!

Here in Singapore, Sir, the majority of the people are Asians. We the Chinese the Malays and the Indians, have sons of youthful age. When they are denied education, they may be dragged in for no reason at all. What is there to protect them? Some form of employment, then, must be offered to them. What has the Government done in helping these young people to get employment? If the Government can do something to help them to get employment, I am sure that gangsterism will not be as bad as it is today. The City Council, Sir, has started a mass health anti-spitting campaign -

An hon. Member: Hear! Hear!

Mr Lee Choon Eng: "Hear! Hear!" - and Government should now start an anti-gangsters campaign.

An hon. Member: Hear! Hear!

Mr Lee Choon Eng: "Hear! Hear! I think the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary has in mind something about this question of starting an anti-gangsters campaign. I hope that while going through this Bill, he will declare what is in his mind.

The Government in organising this anti-gangsters campaign can form divisional good citizens committees. In the Federation, there are good-citizens committees. Why cannot we form such committees here? The Assemblyman for each division should volunteer his service and lead such committees. The public can also co-operate by joining such committees, and Members can go out in their respective divisions to detect gangsters or bad hats within them.

Instead of being handed straightaway to the police for arrest, I think they must be given a chance. They should be told that crime does not pay and that they should change their mode of life. They should be encouraged to join youth clubs, community centres or organisations of a similar nature. Then they will feel that they are wanted by the public and are not real criminals. In fact when they join such youth clubs or community centres, they can get education on what a good citizen's life is.

Reformatory schools also should be started by the Government where some sort of trade or handiwork could be taught. The products of the handiwork of these youths could be sold in the market, and that work will at least form some sort of employment or temporary employment -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of order, Sir. Must we be plagued by all these irrelevancies and trivialities?

Mr Speaker: I have not found anything irrelevant; as to matters being trivial, I cannot say that that is out of order.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: It is - it is completely unconnected with what we are debating.

Mr Speaker: Well, I find that there is nothing irrelevant being uttered by the Member so far.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Thank you very much, Sir.

I was just making suggestions to the Government to introduce more powers to stamp out gangsterism, and I think it is up to Government to accept or reject them. I cannot see where the question of order comes in.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: It is not in good order.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Certainly it is in very good order.

Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Member address his remarks to the Chair?

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I am much obliged, Mr Speaker.

Sir, as I said, the products of these reformatory schools could be sold to the public and provide some sort of temporary occupation or employment for these so-called gangsters or youths. And if after serving a number of months or years in a reformatory they pass out with a trade, Government can find employment for them in the particular trade in which they are qualified. By educating such people I think we can slowly wipe out gangsterism. It should not be, as stated in the press, a question of meeting violence with violence; if we do so, I am sure bloodshed will come. But if we deal with it in a passive way, I am sure we will be able to wipe out gangsterism very soon.