MINOR OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading Read.

3.29 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Dr Lee Siew Choh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, I am sure that this short Bill will meet with general approval since its primary purpose is to suppress touting. The activities of touts, operating in the vicinity of the Courts and Government and other public offices have been a source of considerable nuisance to the public, and hitherto it has proved very difficult to proceed against them successfully for loitering under the existing Minor Offences Ordinance (Cap. 117).

These touts are not only a nuisance with their pestering and ill-mannered ways, but they are also human sharks who swindle the poor and illiterate members of the public. They charge exorbitant fees for filling in application forms, making Statutory Declarations, stamping documents, etc, or for giving them unauthorised and, more often than not, wrong advice. They are also a potent source of corruption of Government officers when they act as go-betweens between the public and these Government officers. There have been cases of corruption by Government officers linked with the activities of touts. Again, touts sometimes pose as persons of influence with departmental officers, and for an adequate fee can be persuaded to exercise such influence in obtaining documents or in completing procedures without delay. They even ask for money from the illiterate by pretending to bribe officials for favours. What their gullible clients do not know is that in almost all cases the touts pocket the money themselves. Of course, the reputation of the public service is thereby besmirched. Furthermore, many of these touts do not fill in forms correctly for their customers and these forms consequently have to be amended before they can be accepted. When this occurs, applicants, instead of blaming the touts, criticise Government servants for unnecessarily giving them trouble in refusing to accept forms filled in incorrectly.

Administrative measures have been and are being taken to combat this touting nuisance and a good measure of success has been achieved, but it has not been possible to eliminate the touts completely from their happy touting ground nor to prevent them from accosting members of the public even before they reach the Courts and public offices.

Sir, in view of the activities and behaviour of touts, which I have just described, this Bill has been introduced to amend the Minor Offences Ordinance to make it a seizable offence for any person to tout for any purpose connected with any court or department of the Government or City Council or to act as unauthorised adviser to any person who has business in any such court or department. It also makes loitering in or near any court or department of the Government or City Council for any such purpose also an offence. The punishment on conviction is a fine up to $500, or imprisonment up to 6 months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.33 p.m.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, while accepting the principle enunciated in this Bill, I wish to draw the attention of the Government to certain difficulties that may crop up as a result of the implementation of this new Bill.

Sir, the difficulties arise because the persons who are set upon by these touts are illiterate. They do not understand Government procedure. They want somebody to help them over the difficulties of procedure and language. It is because the necessity exists and because nobody else can help them that these so-called touts go to their assistance. Some of them provide a service and some of them exploit these illiterates. I think it is the exploitation of these people by touts which is what the Government is aiming at. The situation is, I agree with the Government, getting worse from day to day.

The remedy, Mr Speaker, Sir, to my mind is not the elimination of the tout. Because if we do successfully eliminate the tout, the need will still be there and somebody must provide and satisfy that need so far as the public is concerned.

I see in the Bill that the phrase "an unauthorised adviser" is used. I presume that that is being used deliberately, because an authorised adviser, I take it, is not going to come within the ambit of this Bill. If one goes to the Immigration Department one sees a number of persons seated at tables providing this service to people who go to the Immigration Department. I take it that under this Bill they will not be touts but authorised persons.

Similarly. Mr Speaker, Sir, if Government could provide an authorised service for these people when they go into Court or Government departments so that they will know where they are going, whom to see, what forms to get and how to fill them up, then I think the tout will be eliminated. This naturally will mean that either Government will have to increase its own staff or authorise somebody to provide this service either on payment of a licence fee or on some other basis. But merely to eliminate the tout and not to put somebody else in his place is going to lead certain members of the public into difficulties and will put them to undue stress and strain.

Mr Speaker: Dr Lee, in reply?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park is quite right about the exploitation part of it. We do aim at eliminating exploitation, and in letting the House know some of the measures so far taken, I am sure there will be no complaints from the Member for Farrer Park.

The measures taken so far are as follows:

1. The appointment of clerks to fill forms and documents on request by the public free of charge.

2. By allowing authorised petition writers to operate on office premises who can only charge fees approved by the departments.

3. Strict control of the issue of forms or blank documents so that they do not fall into the hands of touts.

4. Rearranging inquiries and advice counters in order to provide for more efficient reception service. And of course finally,

5. The employing of watchmen or policemen on duty to prevent known touts from plying in office premises.

The Government is already doing as much as it can, but it will be difficult to eliminate the tout unless stronger measures are taken because they are actually a nuisance to everybody.

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.-[Dr Lee Siew Choh.]

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.