MINOR OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.36 p.m.

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

Last year as a result of strong complaints made by Federation postmen about the frequency of dog-bites suffered by postmen while performing their duties, the Federation Government introduced in the Federal Parliament the necessary legislation to meet the grievances of the postmen. This legislation was passed as The Minor Offences (Amendment) Act, 1961.

Recently, in the course of negotiations over the terms and conditions of service of certain categories of Government officers conducted between the Government and the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees, the Union requested, among other things, that the Government should introduce similar legislation in Singapore for the protection of the State's postmen. This was considered to be a reasonable request, and the Government agreed that it would introduce a Bill accordingly.

This Bill, which is based on the Federation of Malaya Minor Offences (Amendment) Act, 1961, seeks to amend the Minor Offences Ordinance so as to provide that any person (such as a postman) who enters any house or premises in the ordinary course of his duties or with the express or implied permission of the occupier and suffers any injury caused by a dog, shall be awarded compensation, not exceeding one hundred dollars, to be assessed by a magistrate. Such compensation is to be payable by the owner of the dog, quite apart from a fine not exceeding fifty dollars to which he is liable on conviction. The Bill also provides that in any prosecution it shall not be necessary to show a previous vicious propensity in such dog or the owner's knowledge thereof or even that the injury was attributable to the owner's neglect. But an owner is not liable for any injury sustained by a person as a result of any wrongful act on the part of such person.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.40 p.m.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Sir, there is a well-known saying that every dog has its day. Under the law, a dog is entitled to one bite at least before the owner is called to book for it. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome this amendment to the Minor Offences Ordinance. Although the persons primarily intended to benefit by this are the postmen, the Bill, I think, takes it beyond the postmen to any person who suffers a bite.

The summary provision which enables a Magistrate to assess damages to a sum not exceeding $100 is welcome. But I would like some assurance from the Government that if, as a result of a bite, a prosecution has been launched and compensation has been paid by the Magistrate, then such compensation or a conviction of the owner will not preclude the person suffering from the bite from taking the matter further in a civil court. Because a bite could result, if it were a bite which the civil law will take cognisance of, in damages greater than $100. I do hope that merely because the prosecution has been launched and compensation has been ordered, the person who suffers the bite will not be precluded later, because of the compensation or a conviction, from taking the matter to the civil court.

5.42 p.m.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, a person who has been bitten by a dog and who has received compensation cannot be precluded from bringing action in the civil courts if he is advised to do so. I think the Member for Farrer Park very well knows that that is the true legal position.

Mr Speaker: I take it the Parliamentary Secretary is not replying?

Mr Chan Chee Seng indicated dissent.

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 Chan Chee Seng].

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