POST OFFICE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.15 p.m.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, in recent years, the Postal Services Department has experienced constant embarrassment in the number of unpaid money orders which lie in its accounting records because of the inability or unwillingness of remitters or payees to claim payment. Many of the undisposed money orders relate to disputes between landlord and tenant in the payment of rent.

Section 54 (2) of the Post Office Ordinance (Cap. 105) provides two conditions to be fulfilled before an unpaid money order may be credited to revenue : -

(i) that neither the payee nor the remitter can be found; and

(ii) that no claim is made within the period of the one year from the date of issue.

The first condition that neither the payee nor the remitter can be found prevents the Department from crediting the order to revenue as in most instances both the payee and remitter can be found but cannot be persuaded or obliged to claim payment. It has, therefore, been necessary to amend section 54 of the Ordinance.

This Bill provides that the amount payable on a money order is to be paid into the Consolidated Fund where no claim is made within the period of one year from the date of issue of the money order. The Postmaster-General is, however, given discretion to pay the amount .of any claim, even though made after the period of one year but not later than three years, if he is satisfied that there is reasonable cause for the delay in making the claim or if hardship would otherwise result.

Parallel legislation was introduced in the Federation of Malaya on 29th November last year.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, while sympathising with the Postmaster-General in his difficulties and his inability to dispose of these embarrassing amounts, there seems to be a point of principle involved in this, which, if not determined properly, might lead to adverse property results. Sir, the position is this. If I owe Mr X $250, I take a money order out and I send it to him. Under the present regulations, there is imposed on the Post Office an obligation to search out the remitter. It is only when the remitter cannot be found that the one-year period begins to operate [Interruption]. Yes, if within one year from the date of issue no claim is made by such payee or the remitter. If the remitter can be found, the obligation is to give it to the remitter, it cannot go into the State coffers. So that the obligation at the moment now is on the State, where a money order is not paid, to look in the first instance for the payee; and if the payee cannot be found, then to look for the remitter. If he cannot be found, then it goes into the State coffers. There is a switch now. The State is now saying, "I am going to divest myself of this responsibility, to look either for the payee or the remitter." They do not want to take any responsibility in this matter at all. They also say that if, within one year from the date of such order, nothing is done, then the Postmaster-General may in any case, where the claim is made after one year but not later than three years from the date of issue, pay the amount to the payee or remitter. If it is not claimed within three years, under no circumstances will either the payee or the remitter get the money.

We have recently had an amendment to the Limitations Ordinance which said this: that where previously you could only pursue a debt for three years, now you can pursue it for six years. So if I, a debtor, pay my creditor through a money order, after three years I lose my money, but my creditor can still pursue me. That, I think, is not fair. It is not right at all. Because after all, the State has agreed to act as my agent to convey this money to my creditor, and they get a commission for this. It is not a free service. Therefore, I think, to put the matter completely beyond objection, the period of three years, it seems to me, should be extended. Otherwise, the present obligation of the Government to search out either the payee or the remitter should be maintained.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister brought out one very interesting point in connection with the payment of rent. Payment of rent is made by money orders. The Postmaster knows the remitter, the Postmaster can trace the payee. But then the Postmaster cannot force either the remitter or the payee to go and claim the money. That is why in order to obviate that dilemma, this amendment is being passed. I would rather see, if an amendment is necessary, that where you can trace the remitter or the payee, a time limit be given to him. If he does not take it, then it is forfeited. Will the Postmaster go and tell the remitter, "If you do not take out this money, you are going to lose it"? That is not written into the amendment. Is it the intention that the Postmaster, knowing who the remitter or the payee is, will give a notice, saying, "You either come and take your money within a year, or your money is forfeited."

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, I do not think it is the intention of the Postmaster-General to profit out of this amendment to the Post Office Ordinance. It is quite obviously a heavy burden on the Postmaster-General that he should have accumulated in his safe a very large number of unclaimed money orders. I am quite sure that the Post Office will, through administrative action, seek to find out who the remitter is and who the payee is.

With regard to the point raised by the Member for Farrer Park about application of this Ordinance vis-a-vis the Limitations Ordinance, I have been informed by the Legal Department that by virtue of section 3 of the Limitations Ordinance, it is there provided that where the period of limitation is prescribed by any other written law, the provisions of the Limitations Ordinance shall not apply to such action. Therefore, the period of limitation prescribed by this proposed amendment will apply to the recovery of money payable on a money order.

In any case, Sir, I would like to add that it is desirable we should have uniform legislation with regard to pan-Malaysian or pan-Malayan Departments. I have already pointed out that such legislation is already in force in the Federation of Malaya, and after 31st August when our Post Office will come under the control of the Central Government, I have no doubt that the Post Office here will have to follow similar legislation. So I think it may be as well that this House approves this amendment to the Post Office Ordinance.

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 Toh Chin Chye].

Bill considered in Committee.

4.27 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 -

Question proposed, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Rajah: Sir, I think the Deputy Prime Minister has given the House an assurance that through an administrative process though not a legal obligation, the Postmaster-General will, before he exercises his powers under this Ordinance, see to it that neither the payee nor the remitter can be found. That is one aspect of the problem which is solved by administrative action. But the point I raised, and which the Minister seems not to have understood on the limitation period of three years, is this: where there is a debt owing, then the creditor can sue the debtor within six years from the time the debt becomes due. That is the present limitation law, as I understand it. Therefore, if the debtor sends to the creditor a money order through the Post Office, and the creditor does not receive it for some reason or other - he might have gone away - then this three-year period has lapsed, then neither the creditor nor the debtor can go against the Post Office, because the Post Office is protected by this section. But the poor old debtor is not protected from the creditor, because the creditor has not received his money. The debtor has sent the money, the Government has acquired the money, and will not part with it after three years, and the poor old debtor can still be sued by the creditor.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Serve him right!

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would say, "Do not settle your bills through the Post Office." I think it is very unfair indeed that the Postmaster, with all his responsibilities, should also be asked to mediate between creditor and debtor. In fact, I would say this gives the lawyers an increase in their business. May they prosper!

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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