OFFENCES RELATING TO VEHICLES (AMEMDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.11 p.m.

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

The offences relating to the Vehicles Ordinance, 1960, which came into operation on 15th February, 1960, expired on the 14th February, 1961, as Members are aware, the purpose of this Ordinance was to enhance the punishment in respect of offences concerning thefts of motor vehicles, bicycles and parts thereof, and was to act as a deterrent in a situation where such thefts and dishonest retention or disposal of such property were rampant. It was also provided that this Ordinance could be extended by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara from time to time as he thought fit.

The Government considers that under present circumstances it would be more desirable for the Ordinance to be given a more definite period of life. During the period of one year since the operation of this Ordinance, 564 motor vehicles and 2,400 bicycles in 1959, it would appear, therefore, that from the figures quoted, the Ordinance does not have as yet the right impact on criminals committing this type of offence. But against this it is considered that the period of one year was too short for the effectiveness of this Ordinance to be felt. It must be remembered also that time is required to bring about a definite change in the abnormal circumstances which necessitated the enactment of the Ordinance. The fact that the number of bicycle thefts has increased should be weighed against the fact that there is a large increase in the number of bicycles in Singapore and that, on the ether hand, there has been a small drop in thefts of motor vehicles despite the fact that the number of motor vehicles has also increased in Singapore. Even if the crime figures in respect of thefts of vehicles remain static during the currency of this Ordinance, that in itself is a good indication that the Ordinance has achieved something good in preventing the theft figures from rising appreciably. The fact, therefore, that this Ordinance would be in operation for another four years should act as a deterrent on the nefarious inclinations of criminals towards this type of offence.

Sir, for the purposes of continuity, this Amendment Bill has been given retrospective effect from the date of expiry of the principal Ordinance. But until this Bill becomes law, thefts of motor vehicles and bicycles are being dealt with under the Penal Code. It is hoped that during this further four-year period this legislation will have a salutary effect until the situation becomes more normal.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.15 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Sir, a question of principle is involved in the manner in which the Government is seeking to bring about this legislation.

Ordinance No. 9 of 1960 was an Ordinance which was passed in this Assembly and it came into operation on 15th February, 1960. Section 1 (2) of the Ordinance reads:

`This Ordinance shall continue in operation for a period of one year from the date of commencement:

Provided that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara may by notification in the Gazette extend such period from time to time as he shall think fit.'

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs has not indicated that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has acted under the proviso to the section, I am taking it that this Ordinance has now lapsed. If this Ordinance has now lapsed, then I am suggesting to the Government that this is a highly improper way of extending the life of the Ordinance.

By the amendment to amend section 1 (2), it is sought to delete the word "one" and substitute therefor the word "five", thereby giving it continuity with retrospective effect. To begin with, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is highly undesirable, particularly in a criminal Ordinance which affects the rights and liberties of subjects. If this amending Bill is passed into law, then the position in law is that what are not offences today become offences merely by retrospective effect. That is a principle which no self-respecting Legislature can accede to.

The Parliamentary Secretary says that the Government is not going to make use of this Ordinance in respect of offences that have been committed since 15th February, 1960, until such time as this Bill, if it becomes law, is brought into operation. With respect to the Government, I suggest that the proper way to do it, as the previous Ordinance has now lapsed, would be to bring in an entirely new Ordinance which would not have - on the statute book anyway - provisions which would enable the Government to take retrospective action in respect of criminal offences. It is highly undesirable. As there is the Penal Code under which the offence of theft can be punished, and as the laws of the country provide for the dealing of these offences, I suggest to the Government that they should withdraw this Bill and reintroduce it in another form.

4.20 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, it would help the Opposition if the Minister for Labour and Law could tell us whether it is right to extend the life of a law which has already lapsed. It is no longer on the statute book. If it has lapsed, therefore it cannot be extended.

Mr Speaker: It may be convenient perhaps to break for tea until five o'clock. Perhaps it is the wish of Members?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: I suspend this sitting, and shall take the Chair again at five p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.22 p.m. until 5.00 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.00 p.m.