OFFENCES RELATING TO VEHICLES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Resumption of debate on Question [26th April. 1961], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Speaker: Dr Lee has a business motion?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Dr Lee Siew Choh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the Order for the resumption of debate on the Second Reading of the Offences relating to Vehicles (Amendment) Bill set down this day as item 3 of the Orders of the Day be discharged and the Bill be withdrawn.

Mr Speaker: I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary might wish to explain why?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That can be done during the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: I take it the Parliamentary Secretary means the Second Reading of the Offences relating to Vehicles Bill which is to be introduced on a Certificate of Urgency?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes, Sir.

Mr Speaker: That is item 1 in the Introduction of Government Bills.

Question proposed.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the House is entitled to know why the Parliamentary Secretary wants this done. At the moment, we are in the dark.

Mr Speaker: I do not know whether any other Member wishes to speak. The Question has been proposed. Dr Lee, in reply, if there is any reply.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am pleased to take this responsibility upon myself for this. I regret to say that through an oversight in Gazette notification the original Ordinance was allowed to lapse.

Sir, it is not my purpose here to apportion the blame between the S.A.G.'s Chambers and the Ministry of Home Affairs who are supposed to keep tabs on these things. But unfortunately arising out of the oversight, the matter was referred whether or not it was necessary, or whether or not it would make any difference in the long run to have the Ordinance continue in force. A lengthy debate took place with the Police who convinced me, as the then Acting Minister for Home Affairs, that the Bill should continue. I then gave instructions that, instead of a yearly renewal, a Bill should be prepared to allow the Ordinance to continue in force for a period of five years, and the matter could be reconsidered by a subsequent Assembly. When the Bill was prepared, the Minister for Home Affairs had come back and I personally lost touch with the matter. Subsequently, it was introduced not as a new Bill for a period of five years, which it is now our intention to move, but one which, as the Member for Farrer Park had pointed out, attempted to continue in existence a Bill which, technically, had lapsed by a failure to print a Gazette notification. The matter has now been put right. I do not know whether it is of advantage to pass any castigating remarks on either the Crown Counsel or the junior clerical officers who should have seen to this matter. However, I am assured that everybody did, in fact, do his duty, but the reference book which is turned up day by day to see what lapses and what needs to be renewed was unfortunately not turned up in this particular case in time. It was discovered a few days after it had lapsed. I must say this on behalf of the permanent officials of the Government - that the discovery was made within three days of the lapsing, and the length of time between the lapse and the introduction of the Bill does not indicate that it was forgotten for that long period of time, but it does indicate that a debate was going on whether a Bill of that nature should be reintroduced. As I have said, we have decided that the Bill should continue, instead of a yearly renewal. It has a certain deterrent effect and should continue for the rest of the life of this Assembly.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Order for the resumption of debate on the Second Reading of the Offences relating to Vehicles (Amendment) Bill set down this day as item 3 of the Orders of the Day he discharged and the Bill be withdrawn.