WAR RISKS (GOODS) INSURANCE (WINDING UP) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr S. Ramaswamy): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Hon. Members of this House may wish to know the brief history of the principal Ordinance which this Bill proposes to wind up. The War Risks (Goods) Insurance Ordinance was introduced in 1941 with a view to insuring goods in Singapore (then a British Colony), against certain risks in time of war. A similar Ordinance with the same intention was also introduced in the Federation of Malaya.

The War Risks (Goods) Insurance Ordinance required persons and companies holding stocks of goods for sale worth $10,000 or more to take up War Risks (Goods) Insurance policies. The policies were obtainable from those insurance companies in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya which were accredited agents of the Board of Management. The latter body was set up under the provisions of the War Risks (Goods) Insurance Ordinance. It controlled and managed the funds collected from premiums on insurance policies for goods insurable under the Ordinance. The policies covered the goods against damage, loss and seizure through enemy action. Goods that were insurable included rubber, tin, clothing, provisions and other merchandise.

In 1946, the Board of Management under the Ordinance was reconstituted to register claims and to pay compensation to those cases that were proved. Since 1947, no claims of payment under the War Risks (Goods) Insurance Fund Ordinance have been reported, and it is apparent that no further claims are expected. It is, therefore, necessary that the principal Ordinance be wound up. However, in doing so, no further expenditure of public money is expected to be incurred.

The Bill before the House is a straightforward one and the provisions in it are mainly procedural. Clause 4 provides that within a further period of three months from the coming into operation of the Ordinance, the Board of Management can continue to apply the Fund in the payments of outstanding claims. Should there be a dispute in respect of any claims, the amount of the claim shall be paid into court or other arrangements made, as deemed fit by the Board of Management, after obtaining approval from the Minister. At the end of the three-month period from the coming into operation of this Bill, the unexpended balance and assets of the Fund (if any) shall be deposited with the Accountant-General, and shall be disposed of as directed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, as provided for in clause 5 of the Bill. Clause 6 requires that the accounts of the Board of Management be audited by the Director of Audit and published in the Government Gazette. After the publication of the Board's accounts, the Board of Management shall be wound up.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, I quite appreciate the desire of the Government to wind up this fund. I am completely in sympathy with it. I rise merely to seek clarification of certain seemingly contradictory aspects of the Bill. You will see that in clause 3, all actions are barred as from the date of coming into operation of this Ordinance, both against the Government and against any member of the Board.

Clause 4, however, suggests that if there is any disagreement in respect of claims, monies will be paid into court, which does suggest that one can then make a claim in court contrary to the provisions of clause 3. It may well be that I have misunderstood the purpose of these clauses. I would like a clarification.

Sir, I would furthermore inquire as to what is the extent of the fund at the present moment. Surely this House is entitled to basic information when it is sought to wind up a fund. What is the total of the claims outstanding? Furthermore, Sir, they seek indemnity provisions under clause 10. You will notice that fortunately clause 10 does not come into operation forthwith. But by virtue of the provisions of clause 1, sub-clause (2), it will come into operation at a later date. It is my earnest hope that the Government will not seek its introduction without giving an opportunity to all those who seek to make claims, to make them before that indemnity applies. But in any event, Sir, this House again is entitled to know. You are seeking to give indemnity. Are there any claims at the present moment outstanding? Are there any claims anticipated? What is the true position?

Mr Speaker: In reply, Mr Ramaswamy.

Mr Ramaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 4 is not in contravention of anything in clause 3. Clause 4 only provides that within a further period of three months from the coming into operation of this Ordinance, the Board of Management can continue to apply the fund in the payment of outstanding claims - not new claims. Since 1957, there have been no claims filed, and I do not know whether there are any outstanding claims still unsettled. If the Member for Anson wants to know, I shall be prepared to let him know the facts.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr David Marshall: Do I understand that under the circumstances, the Second Reading of this Bill will then stand adjourned to a later date?

Mr Speaker: It is not what the Parliamentary Secretary has said.

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 Ramaswamy].

Bill considered in Committee.

4.23 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: The figure "1961" in page 1, line 5, will, as a matter of course, be altered to read "1962".

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 -

Question proposed, "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary has informed this House that there is no conflict between the provisions of clauses 3 and 4, because clause 4 deals with outstanding claims and clause 3 deals with fresh claims. Sir, will you please look at clause 3:

`...no suit, action or other legal proceedings shall lie, be instituted or maintained...'

Maintaining a suit is with reference to an outstanding claim. Now, Sir, it deals "in respect of any claim or award.... debt or liability incurred". Let us turn to clause 4. Clause 4 does not necessarily mean a claim in a court of law. There may be the payment of outstanding claims which may refer to claims which have been made to the Board. How is the Board then going to pay money into court when, by clause 3, it is completely shut out from all jurisdiction? I do urge the Parliamentary Secretary - and I say this in no nasty spirit of criticism - That he should take this Bill back. I do appreciate his position and sympathise with it. Perhaps he could have the State Advocate-General reconsider the point. There seems to be no urgency about it. But I do say, Sir, that, as it stands, it seems to shut out completely all claims of any character except such as the Minister may wish to pay. The proviso of payment into court is not applicable, and furthermore an indemnity is sought without giving this House information as to whether there are any outstanding or potential claims. The Parliamentary Secretary has been good enough to say he will give me this information. He misunderstands the whole procedure, if I may say with respect, Mr Speaker. Firstly, the information is necessary in order that we should decide on the merits of this Bill. Secondly, it is a matter for this House and not for the individual concerned that the information should be made available.

Mr Ramaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, though I may not be a lawyer, I am advised that clause 4 refers to outstanding claims and clause 3 just prohibits or denies anyone to put in fresh claims.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, it has been some time since I last dealt with the subject and, therefore, I am speaking very much from memory. But in general the position is that payments out of this fund have been going on for a very long time, since more than 14 years ago, if my memory serves me right. In fact, nearly all the claims made under the principal Ordinance have been settled. I would say, therefore, for a large number of years no new claims have been made for payment. Nevertheless, as a precautionary measure, it will be necessary to set aside certain funds and assign it to the Accountant-General to meet some odd claims that may by chance have been overlooked in the past and submitted in the future. This Bill has been vetted by the State Advocate-General, and I assure you that it is perfectly in order and will meet all contingencies that may arise in the future.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, may we go back? It is very elementary. Clause 3 says:

`... no suit, action or other legal proceedings [notice the words "other legal proceedings"] shall lie, be instituted or maintained...'.

Maintained either in respect of existing outstanding claims we are told there are none. Right, then, no suits can be brought.

Clause 4, however, says the Minister can pay the money into court. Sir, how is anybody going to get the money out of court if no legal proceedings, not merely suit or action, or other legal proceedings, may be instituted or maintained? I am just trying to draw to their own attention, Sir, the fact that the Ordinance shuts out what they seek to do. It is inconsistent and illogical and should be taken back and redrafted. I move the deletion of clause 3.

The Chairman: The hon. Member can vote against the Question "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 9 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 -

Question proposed, "That clause 10 stand part of the Bill."

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister inform us whether there are any actions covered within the ambit of clause 10 or whether any actions are anticipated?

The Chairman: The Question is, "That clause 10 stand part of the Bill," and, therefore, the debate should be on the principle of it. Perhaps the hon. Member for Anson can convert that inquiry into an argument on principle.

Mr David Marshall: I appreciate your advice, Mr Speaker. I say that we should not pass this clause unless a need is shown for it or unless this House can be given information which satisfies it that the Government is justified in seeking indemnity in respect of claims by citizens who are lawfully entitled to them at this juncture.

Mr Ramaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to tell this House that this Bill does not only operate in Singapore alone. A similar Ordinance - I do not know whether it has been passed in the Federation or not, but this is a Pan-Malayan War Risks (Goods) Insurance. This clause 10 does not only affect claims from Singapore, but it may also affect claims from the Federation. Therefore, we cannot ignore the provisions there.

Mr David Marshall: I am at a loss to understand the Parliamentary Secretary, Sir. Do I understand that he now says there is no need for this clause in Singapore, but there is a need for it in the Federation, and we should, therefore, copy it?

Mr Ramaswamy: I do not say so, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.