CRIMINAL LAW (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

3.09 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of democrats there are in this House who are so intent on remaining unsophisticated and preserving the unsophisticated rights of non-democrats often astounds me. I sometimes wish that we could all conduct a little experiment and, at the end of the experiment, go back to the status quo. What I would like to see happen to the Member for Queenstown is to let him be a victim of his policies and his fond and false beliefs about democratic rights and dealing - if I heard him right - passively with active gangster elements. Then, when the whole thing has fallen down like a ton of bricks over his ears, we can sit back where we are in this House and pass this legislation.

Let us face the facts: either we bring these gangsters to trial, or we do nothing, or we lock them up without trial. Well, we prefer to bring them to trial if we could. As I know, and I think every practising lawyer in town knows, the point is now reached when police officers frankly admit that gangsters are not scared of the police any more. They keep on arresting them, lock them up for 24 hours. The gangsters know the procedure by heart. They are produced before a police court, they get bail, they get two chaps to stand guarantee, $5,000, case postponed four months. They engage a lawyer, lawyer goes to court. On the day proceedings commence, they fix a few witnesses who decide that it is healthier not to say anything, and they are acquitted.

Now quite frankly either you surrender and say, well, the judicial process is inadequate and therefore we have been beaten by gangsters, or we say, well what do we do about it? I say, well, if there is no other way, then we had better deal with them firmly. But at the same time I would like to point out to the Government that there is no use passing Bills of this nature when they get Assistant Ministers running around with gangsters in Kallang. I mean what -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member was guilty of making the same reference this morning and I did not pull him up, but I must remind him there is a Standing Order which prevents any Member from referring to the personal conduct of Members except upon a substantive motion. The Standing Order is 31(9), which reads:

The personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I put it this way: it is really no use for the Government in power to have important Party personages romping round Kallang with known secret society personages.

Mr Speaker: Order. That of course perhaps is inferring an improper motive to Members of the Assembly who are members of the Government.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I was referring, Mr Speaker, Sir, to members of the Labour Front who may not necessarily be members of this Assembly.

But nevertheless it makes a mockery of the whole thing. The whole solemnity of the judicial process, of the legislative process, is gone through to nab the gangsters to bring law and order, and the police know that the gangsters are often seen in the company of important political personages. Now where are we headed for? I say if we want to get to the bottom of this, let us establish some morality, some standards of dos and don'ts, and one of the don'ts is: don't get mixed up with gangsters in public life.

Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the powers themselves; in fact I was remarking to the Chief Secretary that he is a little bit kinder to gangsters than he is to political subversives - he locks up political subversives for two years, he is going to lock up gangsters for six months at a time. But I would like to make this extra plea to distinguish between those who are locked up for ideological and other political matters, from those who are locked up for more mundane and matter of fact reasons of dollars and cents, of extortion, of pick-pocketing, and bashing and acid-throwing. Let us not have any distinction in the treatment they receive in the places to which he has the power to direct them. I see that the provisions in this Bill for the detention and the places of detention are similar to those under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. But we should make it clear that these men should not be detained in the same places or in contiguous places with political detainees. Political detainees are a class apart. In 19501 believe there was a practice sometimes of putting the gangsters with these political subversives. The idea originally was that the gangsters would break down the morale of the political subversives and then corrupt them. I was told the practice was subsequently dropped because some of the gangsters were converted to more effective and purposeful methods of employing their energies and spare time. I hope not only for the sake of the gangsters and the conscience of this House, but generally for the distinction which you must keep clear in the public mind between political and other forms of subversion, that this is a class apart - we are dealing with thugs here, we are not dealing with ideals, ideas or convictions be they right or wrong. And when we deal with thugs, we cannot deal passively, as the Member for Queenstown suggested we ought to do.

Nevertheless one should be careful that none of the allegations which the Member for Queenstown so often repeats in this Assembly ever come to life; they should never be true. There should never be a situation in which it is generally believed, rightly or wrongly, that force is being used. That is a matter of the utmost importance in the preservation of the morale not only of the police force, but the morale of the public generally. If it is believed that members of the police and Secret Societies Sub-Branch do in fact beat up secret society detainees, and that belief generally prevails throughout the whole community, then I say you have a very ugly situation developing in which loss of confidence and public morale, and general alarm and despondency at the executive powers of the Government will undermine the whole basis of the democratic state.

And with that reminder to the Government, I would say that any responsible political Party, however distasteful extraordinary powers may be, must give its support to this Bill.

3.16 p.m.

Mr J. M. Mason (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, after two such flights of rhetoric I am rather reluctant to get on my feet but there is one point which I feel I must protest against, and that was a statement made that, sooner or later, if these powers are granted to the police, a police officer will abuse them. Now Mr Speaker, in the last year or so, with the idea of preparing themselves for the responsibilities of self-government, the Governments of this Island and of the Federation of Malaya have very rightly insisted on many sweeping changes. Amongst those changes, we have seen a large change in the makeup of the Singapore Police Force. Many previous officers who came from overseas to serve in this Island have been pensioned off on very generous terms. Their places have been taken by the local boy - if I may refer in such a lighthearted phrase to the very highly-trained, highly capable and highly efficient Asian police officers which we have today.

I cannot believe for one moment that any of those officers or the men under them will abuse any powers that are granted them by this House. I feel when it comes to voting, I really hope to see a unanimous vote in favour of this Bill, which would be tantamount to a vote of confidence in our own police force, which police force, I think I may say, if this House cannot claim paternity it can claim at least to be its godfather.

3.19 p.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. Member for Queenstown might have changed his mind after he listened to the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar regarding so-called democratic open trials. Sir, the hon. Member for Queenstown really represents the man-in-the-street, and we know he is really one of them - the hawkers, the workers, the ordinary people - he is very popular among them, and I am sure he can learn from them a great deal how gangsters get off through so-called justice and fair trial in open court. Sir, I give my hearty support for the statement made by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar who opposed these too greedy, unscrupulous lawyers who want to make money quick and who fix witnesses. As what the Member of the Bar -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Point of explanation, Sir,I do not want to be quoted to the Bar Committee, through the honorary offices of the Member for Changi, that I have suggested that members of the Bar fix witnesses against persons. I do not believe that they would be so rash and stupid as to do such a thing and, secondly, I did not say that. What I did say was that usually when the trial comes on, between the time when the case was first mentioned in court, in the two or three months before the trial, somebody, somewhere, at some place, at some time, got at some witnesses. And they are not lawyers who do this, because I do not believe, having seen the members of the Bar and the recent recruits to it, that they have the physical necessity, the requirements, the prerequisites to instil the kind of fear which I think one secret society gangster can instil in another.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I must express my thanks for the explanation given by the Member for Tanjong Pagar in that he admitted that there are a few people who, somewhere and at some time, unscrupulously, greedily, fix witnesses and help gangsters to get off. Sir, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar has admitted that he is a member of the Bar Committee, I wish he would assure this House that he would bring this matter to the Bar Committee to discuss whether even one unscrupulous lawyer is practising such things.

Sir, my next comment is on the statement by the hon. Member Mr Mason about abuse of power by police officers. Sir, I think this point is worth considering more. Yes, all along we respect the integrity and high ability of the police force in this country, but as I mentioned during the April sitting, police officers may be misled into misusing and abusing their powers; they may not do this purposely but because they are misled into it. Why? - the C.I.D. forces are unreliable, untrustworthy. This is known not only to many honourable Members of this House, but, I think, even to the police themselves. So it is high time, Sir, for the Hon. the Chief Secretary to consider whether the police force should set up a new branch, say a juvenile section, to deal with delinquents; to clean out the bad hats among the plainclothes men; and immediately to recruit a new force of plainclothes men to build up the confidence and trust of the people.

Sir, I fully support Mr Mason that this Bill should be supported unanimously by this House. It is not only timely but already overdue. Anyhow, despite its importance and timeliness, I have a few comments. A patient is told by a doctor he suffers from high blood pressure. From time to time he has headaches. We know too well that he suffers from high-blood pressure. But he only relies on Aw Boon Haw's "Tiger Balm". Every day he rubs this "Tiger Balm" to try a cure. Sir, that is useless. Similarly, to me this Bill can only cure temporary headaches but not the high-blood pressure. We Chinese say, "Yao tzu pen pu nen ke tzu piao; tzu pen pu nen ke tzu piao."

Mr Lee Choon Eng: What does that mean?

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Translated - you must get to the root of the trouble. You can never have a cure by just rubbing any oil or any ointment into the skin.

Sir, I appeal as an Independent Member: all political Parties, hands off gangsters! This is most important. As long as any politician belonging to any Party tries to seek support from gangsters, the gangsters will continue.

Sir, we talk about the unemployment problem. I think now is the right time for the Hon, the Minister for Labour and Welfare to give us an exact figure of the unemployed in Singapore. Many a time when I asked him please to quote the figure of unemployment in this Colony, he mentioned only a few thousand registered unemployed at the Labour Exchange. Sir, this is not true -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think if the Minister for Labour and Welfare attempts to do that, I must rule him out of order because there is nothing in the Bill about figures of unemployment.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I am trying to cure the high-blood pressure, but not by this "Tiger Balm" type of Bill. It is useless, Sir. The problem of gangsters is not only a social one but, to me, an economic and political one as well. Simply by empowering the police to have the vital right to make arrests and detention, you cannot expect the gangster problem to die. To me, Sir, the fundamental problem will still remain, not solved. Give us the real figure of how many unemployed there are in this Colony, including hawkers, for many of them are also unemployed.

The Hon. the Minister for Commerce and Industry made a very timely and constructive statement this morning but we know that, despite his hard work and sincerity to try to improve industrialisation and promote the entrepot trade, his hands are tied, and that even time is against him. How to promote industrialisation when even at the Causeway the tariffs are so high against him? As for the entrepot trade, does the Indonesian and Chinese trade improve or decline?

Sir, in my conclusion I wish to make a point. This Bill is introduced by an expatriate officer, the Hon. the Chief Secretary, to meet the problem of gangsters, but if Whitehall in London insists on dividing our people into the Bornean, Singaporeans and Malayans, the three territories will forever not be able to enjoy either economic or political stability, and as long as there is economic and political instability, gangsterism can never die. Sir, I think it is high time for Whitehall to consider. Do not divide us. Let these three territories become one. We cry about unemployment in this Colony, yet North Borneo makes an announcement inviting Hongkong farmers and workers to open up its territory. Sir, of course you are going to rule me out as being irrelevant, but it is the only remedy to solve this problem.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member has anticipated me!

3.30 p.m

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Sir, when I was handed a copy of this Bill this morning - I have had a short time with which to look through it - I was very unhappy and uneasy in my mind to know the additional powers that were asked for by Government to be given to the Police. This Bill curbs to a certain extent the liberties of the people of Singapore and certain clauses make me almost feel that I should oppose this Bill, particularly clause 55 which reads:

"...if an officer of or above the rank of Superintendent of Police is satisfied that the necessary enquiries cannot be completed within the aforesaid period of forty-eight hours he may authorise the further detention of such person for an additional period not exceeding fourteen days...".

This indeed is a very wide power given to a Police Officer but the manner in which the Hon, the Chief Secretary delivered his speech this afternoon stressing upon the gravity of the situation that confronts us today, quoting us figures showing the incidence of crime, murders, burglaries and thefts connected with gangsterism, then I must say that my mind is changed and I have no hesitation in supporting this Bill this afternoon.

I am very glad indeed that he has assured us that the purpose of this Bill is to get at the leaders and not at the small men because it is the leaders who must be detained and I hope that all efforts will be concentrated on them so that the smaller fry will then be given a chance to know that Government and the public of Singapore are prepared to resort to extreme measures to make this place suitable for us to live in. I am glad also to note that in two months' time, the parent Ordinance, that is the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, will come up again before this Assembly for us to approve or to deny its extension. By that time I hope a full statement will be made to us and we shall be able to judge whether the provisions of this Bill which gives so much power to the Police should be extended or not.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems to me that the newspapers during the last week have focused their attention on gangsterism which made us feel that gangsterism is a new problem that has just cropped up; but I would like to remind this House that gangsterism has existed for a very long time. Since the founding of Singapore, there has been gangsterism. All along, the Government has had in its armory many types of laws to curb this undesirable activity. All along, it has had plenty of time and money that it could spend usefully to prevent an occurrence of this type of gangsterism and yet today we find that the Government comes to this House to ask for extraordinary powers. I do not say that that is wrong but I would say that the Government has been caught on the wrong foot and that we must now support Government in this measure in order to bring to Singapore the peace that we enjoyed before. This problem of gangsterism, I believe, is not due to people just wanting to become gangsters at once but there are a lot of contributory causes. Many of the Members in this House have rightly pointed out that one of the causes is unemployment. I agree with them wholeheartedly. I agree that due to the present trend of events, many people are afraid of operating their businesses here. They are chased away by the uttering of very irresponsible politicians. They close down factories; they refuse to expand their businesses and they refuse to start new businesses. This, of course, has increased unemployment on a greater scale than ever. If this situation is not rectified soon enough, I believe that the law will have to be prolonged for a longer period than necessary. The Minister for Commerce and Industry has come out with a little plan. I wish his plan success but it will only succeed if all politicians will be less irresponsible.

Again, Sir, gangsterism is not merely due to unemployment. There are so many young people in Singapore who have not been given the education they deserved. They have been turned out on to the streets at an early age - an age too young for employment and with knowledge far too meagre to be wanted. Something must be done to bridge this gap and although the Government, through the Welfare Department, is doing what it can, yet I think it has not done enough. More assistance in this direction will help Singapore on its way to get rid of this menace. If money is not spent to help our youths to occupy their time usefully to learn a trade or get themselves into organisations and help themselves usefully until such time when they are of an age that would be acceptable for employment, then we will have to spend more money on other departments like the Police and the Prisons Departments. I know we have these troubles all these years; when every time a vote comes before the Hon. the Financial Secretary, invariably he cuts out or reduces the assistance given to these youths by the Welfare Department.

Further, I have read about the utterings of many important people in Singapore on gangsterism in the papers during the whole of last week. Everybody said, "It is a terrible thing. We must curb it. We must do something about it." But I notice one thing. All these prominent people will only shout their heads off but will not do anything that is useful to help correct the situation! I wish the people of Singapore would not just shout but would come out to help in this direction. Politicians should not just condemn one thing or another but should come out to work and contribute something towards the well-being of this country. We have today a situation whereby gangsterism is slowly taking over the powers of the Police. The people are more afraid of gangsters than they are of the Police. The gangsters, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) said, know the law by heart. We have to do a few things to improve the situation. There was the "Police Week" that was staged not so very long ago. I visited a number of police stations and I was amazed by the courtesy shown by them. I was glad to see the change of heart of the policemen. They were all ready to serve but they were only ready to serve during Police Week! Once the Police Week was switched off their readiness for cooperation also dimmed. I hope that the Police Week staged not so long ago will be staged 365 days a year. The courtesy shown to the public should be shown every day of the year. If the people know that they can run to the Police every time they are in trouble, for protection, they will invariably choose the path which is lawful. But if they know that running to the Police means endangering themselves or their opinions falling on unsympathetic ears, then gangsterism will be on the rise.

I heard what the Member for Tanjong Pagar said about gangsters; how they know the law, how they know that they can be detained for 24 hours and later on brought before a Court to be charged, get themselves bailed and then come up before the Court again in a few months' time for the case to be heard. But he missed out one very important thing and that is, usually at such hearings, there will be a willing lawyer to defend them. As a member of the Bar Committee, I wish he could bring this matter up before their attention so that they should not only count the dollars and cents that they can rake in, but should also consider the moral behind a case and see whether it should be defended or not. If there is cooperation again in this direction, then we will not have too many of these gangsters or murderers getting free! I think that is a very important point for the Member for Tanjong Pagar to press home. Today, before us we have this law, a law to curtail the liberty of the individual. We know that it is impossible not to have this law; this law is not welcome if it is considered in the light of democracy. But we say we support this Bill reluctantly and we like to see this Bill repealed as soon as it has served its usefulness. I hope that the period for this Bill will be about a year or less. After that, it should be rescinded.

We love our ways of life. We love freedom - freedom of the person - and we must come to a compromise, either to give such powers to Government or the gangsters taking over. As soon as we have the upper hand, then we should want to reclaim our liberty. I recall one very interesting statement in a paper last week. There was a very prominent visitor to Singapore in the person of Mr Ogata who was the Police Commissioner here during the Japanese occupation. He told us, "During my time, Singapore was all peaceful. You could sleep with open doors. There were no gangsters. It was just peaceful." But I would like Mr Ogata to know that we do not relish that type of a peace. We lived in fear. We lost all our personal liberties. We resented their being here. We resented their method of arresting anybody they liked and of administering the law in the way they did. We have never welcomed them; we have never loved them; we have not forgotten them and we will not forget them!

3.47 p.m.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Words, words and words, Sir, and pretences! "We support this Bill with reluctance." Why not come out in the open and admit that emergency circumstances require emergency measures? There is no need to hide behind the bush and to talk of "democracy", the "freedom of the person", "the rights of the citizen" and "liberties". What price liberty next year when a backseat driver of the Member for Tanjong Pagar might be Prime Minister? Have you ever thought of that? Talk of liberties and this and that! Freedom from gangsters during the Japanese occupation is all right, but what about the Government then? Freedom from gangsters next year probably, but what about the Government that you are going to get? Think of that first. What price liberty! And that, Sir, is the weakness of democracy. Democracy nibbles at the problem. A totalitarian political party gets its candidate in, whereas a democratic party talks about fairness in fighting an election, and this and that. Yet in spite of all that you get people coming out and posing as virtuous ones, like the Member for Tanjong Pagar, by admonishing politicians and telling them not to have anything to do with gangsters. Only, he would not say what part his Party had to do with gangsters though in the Elias Report there was some mention of gangsters being tied up in the Tanjong Pagar by-election.

Sir, the whole problem boils down to this. Do we or do we not have confidence in the Police? There might be some members in the Police Force who might abuse these powers, but as a whole if we have confidence in the Police, then the individual has nothing to fear. If we do not have confidence in the Police, let us say so now in which case we should not pass this Bill.

Sir, there are basic reasons we admit, but in spite of education and in spite of all the necessities that a human being wants we still have gangsters in many countries and gangsters need not be only the poor. They need not be gangsters because of force of circumstance. You have examples of rich gangsters, gangsters who sit high in society. They are big names and they move in the best of circles but basically they are gangsters. Their method of gangsterism is different; that is all. In some places, they call them capitalists, in some places they call them vested interests but there it is still gangsterism. However, today we are trying to pin down the gangster who uses physical violence and intimidation. Of course, politicians too use intimidation in getting votes and getting themselves returned.

In Singapore, Sir, I am afraid that economic conditions are not going to get better. Employment is going to get more and more difficult and even if I have to say it, I think I should be open and frank about it. Our population is increasing at a terrific pace and we have not a hope of catching up with the employment problem unless everyone in Singapore works towards it and the only way to work towards it and to save our rice bowl is to get united and fight these politicians who are frightening away all forms of investments. Let us not talk about capitalism. Let us not talk about democracy. Words, words and words! When your stomach is empty, all these words do not mean a thing to you. What you want is first a job, a house, to get your children married, and so on, and that is not going to come about by mere platitudes sounded in this Assembly and on the election platform. If we are going to have honest politics, Sir, and if we are going to do something to save Singapore from destruction, let us forget all these platitudes, and let us get united and work to save Singapore - I say to save Singapore and to save our rice bowl.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chief Secretary, in reply?

3.51 p.m.

Mr David: In reply, Sir. I welcome the general support which has been given by previous speakers with possibly one exception to the Bill which is now before the House. I would like also to offer my congratulations to the hon. Mr Mason on his maiden speech in this House and to say that I am sure the Commissioner of Police and his officers will welcome the very generous tribute which he paid to them in the course of that speech.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar suggested that it was important that there should be no grounds which would shake the confidence of the public in the Police and the way in which they exercise their powers. I entirely concur with him on that and I could only wish that certain Members of this House did not seize every opportunity to continue to refer to allegations of that kind.

Much of the debate on this Bill, Sir, has ranged over the economic reasons which lie behind unemployment and what gives cause for persons to take to crime in desperation. That, Sir, is something on which I do not propose to embark. As far as this measure is concerned, the Government is introducing it as a temporary measure to meet an immediate threat and as soon as the circumstances are such that the threat no longer exists, then it is not desired to retain the powers.

The Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) sought, if I understood him correctly, to draw a distinction between the Police Force and the C.I.D. He also, if I understood him correctly, suggested that I should sack the whole of the C.I.D.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: On a point of clarification, Sir. I mean part of the C.I.D. which consists of undesirable elements - among the plainclothes men. They are not only known to Members of this House but they are also known to the Police themselves. These people have been recruited from bad hats and ex-convicts.

Mr David: I thank the hon. Member for the clarification, Sir. This is a matter which was discussed at very considerable length in a motion before the House in April and I do not propose to follow him on it now. I would only remind him of what I said then that the members of the C.I.D. and the members of the other branches of the Police Force - the uniformed branch - are now interchangeable.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Thank you.

Mr David: The Member for Tanjong Pagar accused me of adopting a less hard-hearted attitude towards these gangsters in the provisions of this Bill than those who are detained under the provisions of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance in that the provision in this Bill only provides for orders to be made for a period of six months. As I explained in introducing this Bill, Sir, it is the Government's sincere hope that during the first six months, we shall see some substantial improvement in the present state of law and order and that if it is necessary to continue in certain cases the validity of those orders then the provision is made in the Bill for the Governor in Council to do so. I will also have very much in my mind the matter to which he drew my attention on the necessity of segregating persons detained under this Bill from those who are detained under the provisions of the other Ordinance.

The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) expressed the hope that the attitude and courtesy shown by the Police during Police Week towards members of the public would be continued during the remainder of the year and would not just be turned on and off for the one week. There I am entirely in agreement with him and I can assure him that everything possible will be done to see that whatever can be done by the Police to build up this mutual confidence between the Police and the public will in fact be done. I was, I confess, a little surprised to hear the remarks he made when commenting on the speech by the Member for Tanjong Pagar as regards the defence of these gangsters when they are brought and charged before the Court. I am, of course, speaking only as a layman but I had always understood that it was the etiquette of the legal profession that counsel for the accused does not concern himself with the merits of the case of his client in deciding whether or not it is his duty to represent him before the Court.

And if I may conclude, Sir, by coming to the speech of the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng), I realise, Sir, that he has not had very much opportunity to study the provisions of this Bill and I therefore appreciate that some of his remarks such as the one that detention under this Bill will be entirely a matter for the opinion of the Chief Secretary were perhaps made because he has not so far had the time to read on a little further in the Bill and to see that the order of the Chief Secretary has not only to be referred to an advisory committee but it is subject to confirmation by the Governor in Council. But even though he has not had sufficient opportunity to read the Bill, I think he has had ample opportunity to hear what I had to say in introducing it and I confess I was extremely disappointed when he quite patently ignored the difficulties which I had been at such pains to stress over the problem of bringing these criminals before the Courts and charging them under the ordinary processes of law. If the only solution that the Member for Queenstown can suggest to this problem is to increase the penalties under the various Ordinances that, as I made plain in introducing this Bill, can be no answer to the present problem.

I would just conclude, Sir, by saying that I agree with what was said by the Member for Serangoon, that this problem of gangsterism is one with which Singapore is familiar and it has had its ups and downs in the extent of the lawlessness to which it has given rise but I think it has been shown on more than one occasion that in the last resort the only effective method by which this gangsterism when it is beginning to get out of hand can be curbed is by removing those primarily responsible from the community.

Question put.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 2; Abstention, Nil. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Lazarous, A. R. Haji Jumat. Lee Choon Eng Ahmad bin Ibrahim Braga, A. J. Abstention. Chew Swee Kee. David, E. B. Nil. Goh Chew Chua. Goh Tong Liang. Absent. Hart, T. M. Jumabhoy, J. M. Ede, John Jumabhoy, R. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim Ching Siong. Lim Choon Mong. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Koon Teck. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Mason, J. M. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Seah Peng Chuan. Shanks, E. P. Soh Ghee Soon. Tan Siak Kew. Tan Theng Chiang. Tan, William. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam.

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.

4.09 p.m.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 -

The Chairman: Certain amendments are to be moved by the Chief Secretary. Perhaps hon. Members may have amendments to suggest. So I propose to take the clause, section by section, referring to each section as new section so and so. Hon. Members are reminded that if an amendment is moved to one particular line, no Member can move an amendment to a previous line; so that if the Chief Secretary moves an amendment to, shall we say, line 4 of the new section 47, it will mean that if an hon. Member wishes to move an amendment before that, he should rise and do so, otherwise he will be debarred. I trust I have made myself clear. We are now on new section 47.

Mr David: Sir, I beg to move,

In line 4 of new section 47, after "custody,", to insert "that such person has been associated with activities of a criminal nature and". The reason for proposing this amendment, Sir, is to restrict the width of this section for the reasons I gave in introducing the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, I beg to move,

In lines 7 and 8 of new section 47, to leave out "the Public Prosecutor" and insert "a judge".

Sir, the Public Prosecutor is the man to whom the police will pass on information. It is he who will ask the police whether to institute proceedings in court or not. Therefore, when it comes to a detention order, he has already had his mind made up in going through the case. I think there is no necessity for the Public Prosecutor to be consulted, because he has already made up his mind on the matter.

4.15 p.m.

This concerns the detention of a man not proved in court, and it should be done with the greatest of care. We do not want to give the person who issues that order of detention the power to do so unless there are safeguards. All Government servants, except the judges, come under the jurisdiction of the Ministers; whereas the judges are independent of the Executive and carry out the order according to what they think is right. A person who is going to suffer detention should deserve full sympathy and his case should be fully considered in the first instance. I know that later on there will be a reference of the detention order to an Advisory Committee. This probably would be done some time after the man has been detained. The Advisory Committee may consist of a judge with some responsible prominent citizens. I think it would be much better to have the case fully justified before the man is sent to detention, rather than send him to detention and then have his case confirmed by a person who always deals with that aspect of the law. I say put a judge in instead of the Public Prosecutor and you can have any other man on the Advisory Committee.

Mr David: Sir, the Government cannot accept this proposed amendment. The hon. Member for Serangoon appears to have misunderstood the reasons for the inclusion of this phrase in section 47. I would like to repeat, for his benefit, what I said in introducing the Bill - that the sole object of inserting this provision for the consent of the Public Prosecutor to be required before an order is made is to ensure that the provisions of this Bill and the detention provided thereunder should not be used as a substitute for using the ordinary judicial processes of law. It is therefore a safeguard against the police, or in this case it might be myself, making an order as being an easier thing to do under this Ordinance than to bring a prosecution. That is the purpose of inserting this phrase in section 47 and the subsequent section 58. The hon. Member for Serangoon, if his amendment were accepted, is seeking to incorporate into this section a further level of safeguard against an order being made on inadequate grounds. We have already provided in this Bill for the order to be made originally by the Chief Secretary, for the Chief Secretary's order to be subject to review, report and recommendations by an Advisory Committee, and subsequently to be confirmed or cancelled by the Governor in Council. Now, Sir, I suggest that those three levels of safeguards are quite adequate to provide what is necessary.

Furthermore, in my view, it would be quite inappropriate to bring the judiciary into this system of safeguards at all. We are dealing here with executive powers, and it is undesirable, save in very exceptional circumstances, that the judiciary should be associated with the exercise or non-exercise of those powers. It also seems to me that it would be extremely undesirable that a judge of the High Court should be brought into these proceedings at the stage which the hon. Member proposes. If he gives his consent, it means that the judge's estimate and his summing-up of the case that is put before him is then subject to review by an Advisory Committee and finally by the Governor in Council. Sir, to obtain a judicial decision and make it subject to review by the Advisory Committee which may no doubt consist of two prominent unofficial citizens would, in my view, also be quite wrong.

As to the hon. Member's reference to the period between the time when the order is made by the Chief Secretary and when it comes before the Advisory Committee for review, I would assure him that that period of 28 days is intended to be a maximum period within which the reference must be made, and in every case the reference will be made as soon as it is practical and convenient for him to do so.

Mr Shanks: I think, Sir, that it is desirable that I should say something here about the position of the Public Prosecutor. The moving of this amendment discloses what is to my mind a most lamentable misunderstanding of the responsibilities of the Public Prosecutor, and while this is no occasion to explain in detail what those responsibilities are, I think it is important that the hon. Member for Serangoon and other Members who are considering this, amendment should understand that the Public Prosecutor performs his functions subject to no direction. The fact that he is a Government servant does not mean that in performing his functions he does as he is told by any government or any Minister. He has to act judicially in the exercise of those functions. If that is properly appreciated, as it should be, I think that, on reflection, the Member for Serangoon will understand that there are against this amendment not only the compelling explanation given by my friend the Hon, the Chief Secretary but also the fact that it is quite unnecessary.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, so far as the position of the Public Prosecutor is concerned, I know that he will be independent after the next election. During the life of this Government, however, that office is also held by the Attorney-General - two offices in one. However, with the explanation given by the Hon, the Chief Secretary, I am quite satisfied with the whole matter and would beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr David: Sir, I beg to move,

In line 9 of new section 57, after "provisions", to insert "of this part".

The object of this amendment, Sir, is to confine the powers conferred by this section to this Part of the Ordinance.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr David: Sir, I beg to move,

In line 3 of new section 59, after "provisions", to insert "of this Part".

The object of this amendment is the same as the previous one which has just been agreed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.