ROAD VEHICLES (SPECIAL POWERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.00 p.m.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

In their current campaign against criminals and secret society gangsters, the Police have found themselves hampered because they can take no effective action against vehicles believed to have been utilized, or intended to be utilized, in furtherance of criminal activities. Taxis, pirate taxis and private cars are all used from time to time to convey criminals, gangsters, vicious weapons and spoils of thefts and robberies. But it is not possible, at present, to take any effective action against the owners or the drivers of such vehicles unless it can be proved that they have participated in the crime or have abetted it.

The object of the present Bill is to enable the Police to stop and search any vehicle on the public roads if they have reasonable grounds for believing that there may be found in the vehicle any article in respect of which a scheduled offence to this Bill has been or is being committed. Where any such article is found either in the vehicle or on any person travelling in it, both the vehicle and the article may be seized by the Police and, under clause 4 (1) of the Bill, the Court is required to make an order for the forfeiture of the vehicle if it is proved to its satisfaction that a scheduled offence was committed in respect of the article concerned. At the Committee stage, I shall be moving an amendment, of which I have already given notice, that an order for forfeiture of the motor vehicle by the Court shall be made only on the application of the State Advocate-General.

Clause 4 (2) of the Bill provides that when any article in respect of which a scheduled offence has been committed and the vehicle containing the article are found without an apparent owner, both the article and the vehicle shall be forfeited if no owner subsequently appears.

Clause 5 is the penalty clause for contravention of or non-compliance with the provisions of this Bill.

It is considered that the introduction of this Bill will discourage vehicle owners from using, or permitting the use of, their cars for criminal purposes. There is little doubt that some car owners and owners of pirate taxis have in the past permitted their vehicles to be used by criminal gangsters, although they were not actually participating in the commission of any crime.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

7.05 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, while sympathising with the Minister for Home Affairs and his Police Force who are being hampered in the suppression of crime, merely because they have not got powers to seize vehicles which convey undesirable persons and articles in respect of which scheduled offences have been committed, I would say this, Mr Speaker, that this Bill as framed gives the Police very, very wide powers indeed.

The Minister fondly hopes that because he gives the Police powers to seize vehicles, he is going to solve the problem of gangsters and undesirable elements in the country. I suppose in the near future we might have a Bill before the House which says that when a pistol or an offensive implement is found in a house, that house should also be forfeited to the State. I think we are fast approaching that state of affairs. We are getting very close to it.

A vehicle is a modern form of conveyance. The next time the Minister might say that because a man is using his two legs, they shall be forfeited to him, because without them, he would not have been able to go to the scene of the crime. We are getting very close to that. It sounds ridiculous. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may say so with respect, this Bill is verging on the ridiculous. The Police would like to be armed with all sorts of powers, and it is for this House to see whether they should get them. The powers which they are asking, Sir, are much too wide and it is not in keeping with the prevalence of such offences.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may say so - and I will raise this on another Bill which is coming before the House - the trouble with the present situation in Singapore is not that the law does not provide adequate measures whereby the Police can bring criminals to book, but that the Police do not have sufficient resources to detect crime and punish criminals. Because they cannot detect crime, they say, "We want all sorts of powers. We want power to seize vehicles. We want power to do this and we want power to do that."

However, Sir, I have a number of amendments to move at the Committee stage, and when moving those amendments I shall try to show to the House how very serious it will be if the Bill is passed in the form in which it is now before the House.

Mr Speaker: Does the Minister wish to reply?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: No, Sir.

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 Ong Pang Boon].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

7.10 p.m.

Clause 1-

The Chairman: There is a typographical emendation:

In page 1, line 5, to leave out "1959" and insert "1960".

That will be done.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 -

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, line 7, to leave out from "road" where it secondly occurs to the end of line 12.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the object of this amendment is this.

Clause 3 (2) reads:

"If-

(a) as respects any road vehicle being on any road; or

(b) upon the overtaking of a road vehicle on any occasion on which the person driving, or in control of the road vehicle has in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) of this section been required to stop but has failed to do so ...".

It seems to me, Mr Speaker, Sir, that sub-clause (2) (b) is totally unnecessary. It will meet the case if the clause reads:

"If as respects any road vehicle being on any road any police officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting ...",

because sub-clause (2) (b) only refers to the case where a vehicle has been required to stop but has failed to do so. That is covered by the case of sub-clause (2) (a) "as respects any road vehicle being on any road".

So it seems to me that sub-clause (2) (b) is unnecessary and, therefore, I have moved an amendment to leave out what I consider to be completely unnecessary in the Bill.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment proposed by the Member for Farrer Park would remove a provision which makes it clear that a vehicle which is not stopped when required to do so can be overtaken and searched and, therefore, I cannot agree to the amendment.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, with great respect to the Minister, I beg to differ from what he says. In fact, any vehicle on any road may be stopped. If I am going along a road and a police officer has reasonable grounds under clause 3 to stop me, he may stop me and I must stop for him to search me.

Sir, I do not see why paragraph (b) is necessary because paragraph (a) takes in everything that paragraph (b) can do.

7.15 p.m.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, Sir, probably it revolves around the definition of "road" which means that supposing a vehicle has been asked by the Police to stop but that vehicle is not on a road as defined in this Bill, then obviously the power of the police officer to search this vehicle is no longer valid, and I presume paragraph (b) is to cover that.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 3 (1) gives the Police power to stop a vehicle. Clause 3 (1) says:

"The person driving, or in control of any road vehicle in motion shall stop the vehicle on being required to do so by any police officer in uniform."

That is the sub-clause which enables the Police to stop a vehicle. Now sub-clause (2) , Mr Speaker, Sir, is the sub-clause which gives them powers to search a vehicle on reasonable grounds. "If as respects any road vehicle being on any road . . ." therefore must take in the vehicle which has already been stopped by virtue of the provisions of clause 3 (1).

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, that would appear to be so, but as the Member for Farrer Park very well knows, there is no harm, I think, in introducing a provision which makes it clear that the Police have the powers to stop and search a car which is in motion as well as to search a car which is stationary on any road. There is absolutely no harm in making those provisions, Sir.

Mr Rajah: Sir, as the Minister for Labour and Law well realises, not only is brevity the soul of wit but brevity is also the soul of good law, and good drafting requires that one does not repeat oneself in the same clause.

It seems to me completely unnecessary and unless the Minister in charge of this Bill or anybody else can say that sub-clause (2) (b) provides for an occasion which sub-clause (2) (a) does not provide for, then, of course, there is a need for sub-clause (2) (b) to exist. But if sub-clause (2) (a) provides for everything that sub-clause (2) (b) takes in, then what is the point of sub-clause (2) (b)? Let us have it out.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, I would say that a nagging wife always makes a point understood!

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may say to the Member for Farrer Park, who is very interested in drafting points this afternoon, there is, in my opinion, very little difference in referring to ice-cream or ice-cream cold!

Amendment negatived.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, line 13, after "officer", to insert "in uniform".

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not a drafting amendment. This is a substantive amendment of sense.

Clause 3 (1) enables only a police officer in uniform to stop a vehicle, whereas sub-clause (2) , as it stands in the Bill, gives any police officer the power to search a vehicle if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is to be found in the vehicle any article in respect of which a scheduled offence has been or is being committed. I submit, with respect, that it is imperative, from the point of view of this clause, that the person who searches a vehicle should also be a police officer in uniform, particularly when the person who has stopped it is required by law to be in uniform.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is necessary to provide that motor vehicles may be searched by a police officer not in uniform - for instance, detectives.

I agree that the person who stops a car must be an officer in uniform, but once the driver of a vehicle refuses to stop, then any police officer must have the power to overtake the vehicle and search it.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, to my mind, it is not an adequate answer. If the driver does not stop his vehicle, I do not see how anybody can search it.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, quibbling over words is quite typical of lawyers.

What I mean is that if a police officer in uniform tries to stop a vehicle and the driver refuses to stop, surely any officer on the spot, whether he is in uniform or not, must have the power to overtake the vehicle, stop it and search it.

Mr Rajah: Does the Minister mean that a police officer may stop a vehicle but that if he has a couple of detectives standing near him not in uniform those detectives should be enabled to search the vehicle? It is more likely, Mr Speaker, Sir, that that is what the Police want in this matter. Because if anybody fails to obey the law or the behests of a police officer, then, of course, he may be chased by any person, and when that person produces his card showing that he is a police officer, then he may arrest the person and different consequences will ensue. But here, Sir, we are considering the case of a person who is asked to stop by a police officer in uniform. He stops, and then somebody not in uniform is allowed to search him. My question is, why should that be so? Why should not the police officer in uniform who has stopped him, search him and his car?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, I think this clause may be understood if we are to cite an example. For instance, if a plainclothes man or even a police officer, who normally would be in uniform but because he was off duty was not in uniform and was on his way to some rendezvous in town, should feel that a car which was ahead of him was suspect, it is quite right that this police officer should be allowed to be given the authority to stop the car. Because if he were to ask the driver to wait so that he could go back home and put on his uniform, then the man would have got away.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is necessary for me to draw the attention of the Member for Farrer Park to the distinction between sub-clause (1) and sub-clause (2) of clause 3.

To stop any citizen driving along a road, it would be necessary that he be stopped by a police officer in uniform, otherwise he has the right to disregard the instruction to stop. Now in the situation envisaged in sub-clause (2), that refers to a case where somebody in control of a car is getting away from a person who is pursuing him. The person who is pursuing him may very well be a police officer who is not in uniform. So all that the police officer has got to do is to order the driver to stop his vehicle. If the vehicle contains articles in respect of which a scheduled offence has been or is being committed and the driver does not stop, then the police officer would pursue him, stop him and search the vehicle. I think that is the essential distinction between sub-clause (1) and sub-clause (2) of clause 3.

Mr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Supposing the one who is being chased is afraid that the one chasing him is a kidnapper, then naturally he will drive faster!

Mr Rajah: I see the point now. It seems to me that the person who is driving a car, unless he sees a police officer in uniform, might think that the person trying to stop him is a kidnapper and therefore he is entitled not to stop: whereas once a vehicle is stationary then a police officer, on identifying himself as a police officer, could search, be he in uniform or not.

In view of that, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I beg leave to withdraw my amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 -

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, line 22, after "therein", to insert "and".

This, to my mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a drafting amendment and unless the word "and" is inserted, the clause does not seem to make sense as it now stands. The clause as it now stands, Sir, reads as follows:

"Where it is proved to the satisfaction of a court that any scheduled offence has been committed in respect of any article found in any road vehicle or on any person found therein seized under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 3 of this Ordinance or that such...".

It does not seem to make any sense whatsoever to me. What is intended I believe, Mr Speaker, Sir, is:

"Where it is proved to the satisfaction of a court that any scheduled offence has been committed in respect of any article found in any road vehicle or on any person [in that road vehicle and the road vehicle is] seized under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 3 of this Ordinance...",

then the Court shall make an order for the forfeiture of the road vehicle. So that before the Court can make an order for the forfeiture of the road vehicle, first of all, a scheduled offence must have been committed in respect of an article either in a road vehicle or on the person found in a road vehicle and the vehicle must be seized. Without the word "and", I do not see what "seized" refers to, Mr Speaker, Sir. Where a scheduled offence has been committed in respect of an article found "and" seized, or something to that effect - without that word "and", it does not make any sense to me. Perhaps the Minister might say that it does make sense and I am quite prepared to listen to him, but as I see it at the moment, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not see any sense in it.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment is a drafting one which can be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, line 28, after "court", to insert "on the application of the State Advocate-General".

Mr Speaker, Sir, it may happen that a man concerned in a scheduled offence has travelled on an omnibus to or from the scene of an offence, and under clause 4, the Court will have no alternative but to confiscate the omnibus. This, I think, may be a bit drastic and it is for this reason that the amendment is proposed.

7.30 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, you will see how all embracing this section is. It even takes into its embrace the big public service vehicles, which the Minister is most anxious to avoid, although that type of vehicle comes within the ambit of the section. He wants the State Advocate-General to decide it and nobody else. I am at a loss to understand why the amendment is being sought. The section as it now stands is a peremptory one. It makes it obligatory on the court to confiscate. Once a scheduled offence has been committed, the court must confiscate. The Minister now seeks to interpose an application of the State Advocate-General and he is trying to soften the blow. How then is the blow going to be softened? Is the State Advocate-General going to say, "I do not think Mr X's car should be confiscated. He is a decent enough chap, you know. So let us leave him out. But, Mr Y, oh, I know he is a crook; so let us confiscate his car." Is that what is going to happen in the State Advocate-General's Office? Is the discretion to confiscate or not to be vested with the State Advocate-General and not with the court? I could understand if the Minister moves an amendment and says the court may make an order; then I would applaud him. But to take the power away from the court and give it to a Government official I think is not the right thing to do; and in any case it is not a good administrative measure to put this amendment through, Mr Speaker. The court, on the application of the State Advocate-General, shall make an order. How is it going to work in practice? In practice, Mr Speaker, this is what is going to happen. Most of the scheduled offences, after the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill has been passed into law, will go to the District Court. None of them will go to the High Court. In the District Court, we do not have Crown Counsel prosecuting. We have police officers prosecuting. So what is going to happen? A police officer is going to prosecute. He will obtain a conviction and get the case adjourned in order that the Solicitor-General or a D.P.P. can come down and make an application to forfeit the vehicle. Is it not all a waste of time? Particularly when the Minister for Law is so anxious to save his very few precious legal officers? Are we not really making work for ourselves? Are we not really making life difficult for everybody concerned? Why do we not give the discretion to the Court? It is so much simpler.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park has been practising in the courts of Singapore for very many years and he very well knows that these are not new provisions that the Government is trying to introduce. He knows very well that under the revenue Ordinances, any vehicle in which dutiable liquor or dutiable tobacco is found is forfeited. An order of forfeiture is then made automatically. In the case of radios, if I have a radio set which is unlicensed, and if that is detected and I am brought to court, my radio is automatically forfeited. There are similar provisions right through our laws.

In the case that we are dealing with, we are dealing with gangsters; we are dealing with people who go about in cars and who stock missiles in those cars to do damage to people like the Member for Farrer Park. If we do not have the powers, how are we to deal with people like that? If we can forfeit, without blinking an eyelid a car in which dutiable liquor or dutiable tobacco is found, do you tell me that we are doing wrong if we want the court to be invested with the power to forfeit the vehicle? Where is the sense in all this, Sir?

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am well aware that under the Customs Ordinance, the courts shall forfeit. Thai is a very exceptional Ordinance. The Customs Ordinance provides for forfeiture, because revenue is an important matter to the State, and anything used to avoid earning revenue for the State is a subject matter for forfeiture, not only in this country, but also in every other civilised country. In those circumstances, it is forgivable because the State must protect its revenue and any object used in the evasion of State revenue should be forfeited. But the position here is quite different. This has nothing to do with State revenue. It is a matter, Mr Speaker, Sir, which affects every citizen in every walk of life. I might have a car. I might have a driver. I send him home. He picks up a friend. That chap has got a dangerous weapon in his pocket. The police arrest him. My car is gone.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: That is as it ought to be!

Mr Rajah: Where is the sense of it? Where is the justice of it?

Mr Goh Chew Chua: Why blame the car?

Mr Rajah: The Deputy Prime Minister says that that is as it ought to be. Well, I am surprised that a responsible Minister should say that. If he had a car and he parked it somewhere, and he did not have a driver, then, Mr Speaker, Sir, somebody could hide in his car with a dangerous weapon. If the police arrested that person in his car, his car would be finished - Deputy Prime Minister or not.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, I am surprised to find that the Member for Farrer Park is so interested in the Government's ability to collect revenue. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Farrer Park will agree with me that, unless you have peace, order and good government, there is no question of the State collecting any revenue from the Member for Farrer Park. So it is very necessary that we have these provisions. The Member for Farrer Park knows that such provisions are not new provisions. They are scattered right throughout our law. He has put forward the case of some innocent person, with a missile in his pocket, being suddenly detained by the police in a car and that car is forfeited - spirited away under the provisions of this Ordinance. Now, to prevent that sort of thing, Mr Speaker, Sir, the State Advocate-General has advised that we make this amendment, that after the word "court", we say "on the application of the State Advocate-General" that the vehicle should be forfeited. The State Advocate-General is the person who is in charge of prosecutions. He reads carefully through all the investigation papers that he and his officers receive and he knows that, in fact, in a case such as the one which the Member for Farrer Park has just put to this House, it will be stupid to forfeit the vehicle and for that reason this amendment has been proposed.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I entirely agree with the Minister that this section could result in a lot of stupidity. But the Minister suggests that the stupidity should be relieved in the State Advocate-General's Office. I am saying that it should not be relieved there. Let it go to court, and let the court decide it. Why should the State Advocate-General be called upon to perform judicial functions affecting property? Why should he have the power of deciding whether a man should be allowed to have his car or not? He is a law officer, so let him not administer the law. On the question whether a piece of property should be forfeited or not, we have adequate machinery in this country to deal with it - machinery which the citizens respect and trust - the courts. Let us leave the courts to decide such issues, not the State Advocate-General. In this Bill, as soon as the State Advocate-General says, "I think this car should be forfeited," the judge has absolutely no option. Is it right and fair that a law officer should hold this whip over the courts? Why not let the courts decide it?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Farrer Park is aware of the practice in these matters. Under the revenue Ordinances, the vehicles are forfeited, and the court has no discretion with regard to forfeiture. If an aggrieved person felt that his vehicle was forfeited unjustifiably, he still had his redress. He could, in the past, seek redress by way of petition to the Governor-in-Council. Today, he can still petition the Cabinet. He has got the right to petition the Cabinet. So why make a fuss over all these little matters, Sir?

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, these are not little matters. These are the fundamental rights of the citizen.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, with due respect to the Member for Farrer Park, if this Bill is to be effective, then the law must provide that the forfeiture should be mandatory; otherwise there will be all sorts of legal arguments which will only go to defeat the purpose of this Bill. I am quite sure the Member for Farrer Park is aware that the court has been forfeiting taxis and private cars involved in smuggling liquor and opium: and I have yet to see him make a hue and cry over the matter.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would submit that the forfeiture of a car is a little matter and that it is the fundamental right of the citizen that he should be protected by the State from the activities of hoodlums.

Mr Rajah: I am surprised that the Minister for Home Affairs should say openly in this Assembly that legal arguments might defeat the purpose of the Bill. I would like to remind him that legal arguments are based on the law.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: There are amendments in the name of the Member for Farrer Park, amendment (iii)* and amendment (iv)+, which appear to have been debated already. I do not know whether

• In page 2, line 28, to leave out "shall" and insert "may".

• In page 2, line 32, to leave out "apparent". the Member wishes to move formally for a vote.

Mr Rajah: I wish to move formally. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

• In page 2, line 28, to leave out "shall" and insert "may".

It will now read:

"the court on the application of the State Advocate-General may make an order for the forfeiture of the road vehicle."

While agreeing with the Minister for Home Affairs that the police must be given wide powers of seizure, I think any system of justice should see that the' balance is held equally between the police, the State and the private individual. The judiciary is there to see that that happens. We have an extremely efficient judiciary, and these are matters best left to the judiciary who can then have an impartial inquiry into the circumstances in which the offending weapon was found in the car, or the offending person was found in the car. If the court is satisfied that the owner of the vehicle had absolutely nothing to do with it or had not connived in it in any way, then the court would say that this is one of those cases where the vehicle should be returned to the owner. Does anybody say that no cases of injustice might arise under this section? If the Minister concedes that some cases of injustice might arise, then I think he must concede the proposition that an impartial inquiry must be instituted in order that those cases might be given a full hearing. The purpose of this amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, is to give the court art opportunity to go into the matter and then decide whether the article should be forfeited or not.

7.45 p.m.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said just now, the law, to be effective, must provide that the forfeiture should be mandatory. This amendment would make my previous amendment meaningless. In the circumstances, I cannot accept it.

Question put, "That the word proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Rajah: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 6; Noes, 28; Abstentions, Nil; Absent, 17. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Baharuddin bin Haji Jumat. Mohamed Ariff. Ahmad Jabri bin Bani, S. T. Mohammad Akib. Buang bin Omar Lim Yew Hock. Junid. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Byrne, K. M. Rajah, A. P. Chan Chee Seng. Thio Chan Bee. Chan Choy Siong, Miss Chan Sun Wing. Abstentions. Fung Yin Ching, Nil. Miss Goh Chew Chua. Hoe Puay Choo, Absent. Madam. Ahmad bin Kandasamy, G. Ibrahim. Lee Khoon Choy. Chor Yeok Eng. Lee Siew Choh. Goh Keng Swee. Lee Teck Him. Koh, C. H. Leong Keng Seng. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Cheng Lock. Lingam, S. V. Lin You Eng. Mammen, John. Low Por Tuck. Mohd. Ariff bin M. Ismail Rahim. Suradi. Ng Teng Kian. Ong Eng Guan. Ong Chang Sam. Rajaratnam, S. Ong Pang Boon. Ramaswamy, S. Sheng Nam Chin. Sahorah binte Tan Kia Gan. Ahmat, Madam. Toh Chin Chye. Seow Peck Leng, Wee Toon Boon. Mrs. Wong Soon Fong. Tan Cheng Tong. Yaacob bin Tee Kim Leng. Mohamed. Teo Hock Guan. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, line 32, to leave out "apparent".

Mr Speaker, clause 4 (2) reads:

"Any article in respect of which a scheduled offence has been committed and any road vehicle containing the same which are found without an apparent owner and for which no owner appears after such notice given as to a court seems fit shall be forfeited."

The words "an apparent owner" are intended to qualify, Mr Speaker, any article in respect of which a scheduled offence has been committed and also any road vehicle containing the same which are found without an apparent owner. In other words, the apparent owner relates both to the article and to the road vehicle. I would submit, with respect to the Minister, that although an article may be without an apparent owner, a road vehicle cannot be without an apparent owner. A road vehicle always has a registered owner. He may not be the true owner, but he is still the registered owner. Sir, in view of that, I think the words "apparent owner" in reference to a road vehicle are quite meaningless.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, "without an apparent owner" means, for instance, without an owner on the spot. For example, an abandoned car or an abandoned article. A car may be abandoned, and although it has a registered owner, he is not there at that time on that spot.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister saying then that any unattended vehicle has no owner?

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: I take it that amendment (v) -

In page 2, line 34, to leave out "shall be forfeited" and insert "may be forfeited after due inquiry"-

has been disposed of. The Member for Farrer Park is not moving?

Mr Rajah: No, Sir.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Schedule-

The Chairman: I understood there were two amendments to be moved?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, may I refer the House to two drafting amendments which appear to have escaped the eagle eyes of the Member for Farrer Park.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the words "all offences under" be deleted from sub-paragraph (a) of the Schedule.

These words are redundant as, in the opening words of the paragraph, there have already been references to "offences punishable under any of the following provisions".

The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be moved? I am of the opinion that it is a minor or purely drafting amendment.

Hon. Members: Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, the reference in sub-paragraph (c) should be to section 4 (2), as 4 (2) is the punishment section.

The Chairman: Perhaps it is a typographical error?

Mr Byrne: Yes.

The Chairman: We will treat it as a typographical error and make the correction.

The Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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