PUNISHMENT FOR VANDALISM BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.26 p.m.

The Minister of State of Defence (Mr Wee Toon Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Members will be aware of the reasons for this Bill, for we have witnessed for some time the sorry spectacle of people of ill-will smearing and defacing our fair city. The writing of slogans, drawing of pictures, painting and marking or inscribing on public and private property has been rampant. Indeed, even the sides of drains have been used by anti-social and anti-national elements in the name of democracy, but their crude artistic feats in effect destroy and deface what democracy has built for the people.

Singapore has also recently witnessed acts of vandalism like the theft of insulating oil from electrical power stations and the wanton damage to fountains. Damaging or destroying public property which is provided for the benefit of the people must be considered extremely serious, for it is the people themselves who ultimately pay for the services and amenities provided by the Government. However, there are, regrettably, certain irresponsible persons in the community who find a cruel joy in destroying and damaging public property. In the interests of the nation, it is therefore necessary that the minority who cause damage should be dealt with severely.

The provisions of the Bill are simple and straightforward. Clause 2 of the Bill defines "private property", "public property", and "act of vandalism". An act of vandalism includes stealing, destroying or damaging any public property.

Clause 3 provides that not only a person who commits the act of vandalism but also one who attempts or causes any such act to be committed shall be guilty of the offence. Persons who are convicted of the offence of vandalism shall, in addition to fine or imprisonment, be liable to caning. Sir, during the Committee stage of the House, I shall introduce amendments for increasing the penalty of fine and imprisonment and for specifying the minimum and maximum number of strokes of the cane. Exemption from the punishment of caning is granted to all women and men who are more than 50 years of age and those who have been sentenced to death. Clause 3 also provides that the punishment of caning shall not be imposed on first conviction in the case of an act of vandalism involving writing, drawing, painting, etc, with a delible substance such as crayon, chalk or pencil and not with an indelible substance such as paint or tar.

Clause 4 provides that the written authority or the written consent as the case may be required for a person to put up posters, etc, shall be produced on demand to any member of the Police, the Special Constabulary, the Auxiliary Police or any member of the Naval, Military or Air Force of Singapore or of those lawfully present in Singapore. A person who fails, refuses or neglects to produce such written authority shall be guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding $500.

Clause 5 provides for the seizure of posters, placards, bunting, etc, to serve as exhibits.

In clause 6 the offence is made seizable and non-bailable. This means that any person may arrest one who engages in an act of vandalism and hand him over to the police.

An important feature of the Bill is the fact that not only the person or persons who actually do these acts will be punished but also those who cause such acts to be done. It is common knowledge to Members that anti-national elements use children and other young persons to smear and mar public and private property. These young people may not be expected to understand their acts and they could be disciplined by their elders giving them a good spanking. However, the person actually responsible for these acts has hitherto got away with it. This Bill now gives the power to use the rod effectively on those who are really behind such acts of vandalism. Indeed the punishment which would normally be meted out to children can now be meted out to the adult delinquents actually responsible for wanton acts of vandalism.

I wish to state at this stage that two new clauses to the Bill will be proposed by me at the Committee stage of the House. I shall give reasons for these new clauses at that time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the reasons for the introduction of this Bill are quite clear and anyone who loves his country and who loves to see it clean and tidy will not oppose this Bill which is to provide exemplary punishment for acts of vandalism.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.32 p.m.

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the House will accept the reasons given by the Minister of State of Defence for the necessity of introducing this Bill. However, looking at the Bill as a whole and especially at the amendments that the Minister is going to introduce for the punishment of acts of vandalism as defined in the Bill, I have the impression that the Government is taking the view that severity of punishment is a deterrent. Mr Speaker, Sir, severity of punishment may not, in fact, necessarily be a deterrent. The way to deter any crime, I submit, is to impress on the wrong-doer the certainty of his being found out if he commits one. Also I have the impression that as far as acts of vandalism are concerned, that is, excluding the anti-national elements, this Bill could only be an interim measure, because, as I see it, vandalism cannot be rooted out by the introduction of a Bill with very severe punishment. It can only be rooted out by educating our young to respect public property and to have a sense of pride in the public amenities provided by society. Also there appear to be certain inconsistencies in the law if this Bill is passed, and I wonder whether the Minister will consider amending the law regarding punishment. Here in this Bill it says that an act of vandalism - if the amendments go through - is punishable by a fine of not exceeding $2,000, or imprisonment of a term not exceeding three years, and also mandatory caning except in certain circumstances. However, the Minor Offences Ordinance, section 11 of which has not been -

Mr Speaker: Mr Tang, if you are addressing yourself to specific provisions as you are now, I suggest that the Committee stage would be the more appropriate place to address your remarks. Could you try to speak now on the broad policies of the Bill rather than on narrow specific details?

Mr Tang See Chim: Yes, Mr Speaker. But these specific details, in fact, concern the broad policy of the Bill, because it does mean that, broadly speaking, the punishment provided in this Bill, as I view it, is far too severe in view of the existing provisions of the Minor Offences Ordinance, section 11 (1) of which has not been amended. May I, Mr Speaker, quote from section 11?

`11 - (1) Any person who commits any of the following offences shall be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty dollars:-

(a) without authority in the case of public property, or without the consent of the owner or occupier in the case of private property, affixes or causes to be affixed any advertisement, bill or notice, or any paper against or upon any building, wall or fence, or writes upon, defaces or marks any such building, wall or fence with chalk or paint or in any other way;'.

This person would then be punished with only a fine on conviction of $50. Whereas if the law-enforcing authorities should charge the same person for the same offence under the new Act to be passed, he would be punished with a fine of not less than $2,000 or imprisonment of three years with mandatory caning. I am just bringing up these provisions for the consideration of the Government. Possibly the Government may wish to amend section 11 (1) of the Minor Offences Ordinance so as to bring it into line with the policy of deterrent against offenders who commit acts of vandalism. As I said, Mr Speaker, on the whole, we appreciate the reasons for the introduction of this Bill and I on balance support it.

4.38p.m.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to explain to the House what we are seeking to do by making this departure from what is normal criminal law legislation. One of the problems we face in running the British system of administration of justice is that the law is often being administered, particularly in recent years, by legally trained magistrates who do not have the advantage of the wider background of the problems of the society and of administering that society. So it is that by the time the offender of a particularly vicious social misdemeanour, like taking a pot of paint and going to every bus stand and chalking up anti-American or anti-British or pro-Vietcong slogans, is apprehended and brought to court, from the vicious petty slogan-shouting hooligan that he is outside, he converts himself into a meek, humble breadwinner of a large family who was doing no more than just giving vent to his political exuberance. And he gets off with a caution and sometimes a light fine. The net result is that this particularly vicious social misdemeanour is not capable of being checked, let alone stopped. It is difficult enough to apprehend these offenders. Under the section in the Minor Offences Ordinance which we have to operate, this is a non-seizable offence. So if you are not a police officer, or even if you are a member of the Vigilante Corps, you will be a very brave man to go and apprehend such a culprit. I do not think it is possible for us to go back to the old British practice where people who are administrators, having served a term in the business of running the government, then do a spell of two or more years on the Bench, and so there is a constant flow of fairly matter-of-fact gentlemen who understand the mechanics of how the system works and know the other side of the coin, not just what happens in the courtroom.

The Bill makes a clear distinction between what is considered a lesser offence, something which just dirties up the wall - which is delible - and where you deliberately seek to mess up the place from time to time with red paint, which is a very difficult substance to eradicate, on bus shelters and public buildings. Large sums of money are expended in order to remove the unsightly scars which they leave behind.

Recently the problem has been complicated by the ease of access to public property which, in the nature of things, is difficult to prevent. Thefts of fountain heads made of copper, copper tubes outside Housing and Development Board premises used for boilers and other things - and copper is in short supply because of the transportation problem of Rhodesian and Zambian copper - and thefts of valuable parts of non-ferrous metals have taken place, to be sold for a fraction of their actual cost. I do not think we can allow this to go on, and I know how strongly the profession and the penologists are against caning. But we have a society which, unfortunately, I think, understands only two things - the incentive and the deterrent. We intend to use both, the carrot and the stick. The carrot is good citizenship. It is a seizable offence to do any of these acts of vandalism, and any member of the Vigilante Corps, any member of the public, can apprehend. A reward will be given in order that these culprits will be apprehended and these crimes will stop.

On the other hand, a fine will not deter the type of criminal we are facing here. He is quite prepared to go to gaol, having defaced public buildings with red paint. Flaunting the values of his ideology, he is quite prepared to make a martyr of himself and go to gaol. He will not pay the fine and make a demonstration of his martyrdom. But if he knows he is going to get three of the best, I think he will lose a great deal of enthusiasm, because there is little glory attached to the rather humiliating experience of having to be caned.

I am not suggesting, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I am quite sure that this is going to solve our problem, but I am convinced that if we are not prepared to innovate, if we are just to stick to old formal channels of legislation or old forms and modes of social control, then these are areas of public behaviour over which society will have no control whatsoever. I hope that there will never be any cause, once these provisions are known, for them ever to be invoked. But I feel reasonably confident that if the offenders are apprehended - as I think they can be apprehended; these are seizable offences and there are enough people in the Vigilante Corps and public-spirited members of the ordinary public - and an example is made of a few, then we will not have the discomfiture of finding the electric power supply failing, because somebody risks blowing up a whole transformer substation for a few dollars' worth of public property which is not sufficiently guarded. If this is understood - and they have a tendency to understand very quickly once the word gets around -I am quite sure that there will be a healthier respect for community property. This happens all over the world. But in every society, values are different, and ours is a new and young one. We could take the other point of view - the Government could be purely negative and say, "Well, in that case, we should not have this community property. We should not have fountains. We should not have these parks. We should not have these amenities, because they are likely to be destroyed, mutilated and losses will be heavy." I think that is a defeatist attitude. By and large, I would say that the majority of the people are law-abiding and respect community property, and if we can check the misbehaviour of this minority, then we can move into wider fields of public amenities with greater confidence that, first, the expenditure will not be wasted, and, second, the maintenance will be what the planners estimate it to be and not what we subsequently find ourselves carrying.

I hope eventually that the remarks I have made here in this House will also be heeded not only by the offenders but also by those who participate in the administration of justice. I have a feeling that often in the younger ranks of the service, the administration of justice is believed to be the application of the law. It is because they believe that, that we are forced to take these measures. I think a wider grasp that administration of justice means the application of the letter of the law in such a spirit that society is able to protect itself, is fundamental. If we are able to implement these provisions with efficacy in the first few months, I am quite sure that this will be a dead letter in our statute book.

The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members will have observed that this Bill seeks to provide exemplary punishment for acts of vandalism and that such punishment is to include caning which is to be made mandatory on conviction.

At the outset, it must be conceded that present-day penological trends are against the infliction of caning as a punishment and that legal opinion is in general against the imposition of corporal punishment in cases not involving violence or brutality. We are, however, unfortunately, confronted with a situation which has to be met with boldly and must take effective measures to curb, indeed eradicate, completely irresponsible acts of hooliganism. Parts of fountains built at considerable expense to beautify the city have been destroyed or stolen, thus completely or partially immobilising them and making it necessary to post policemen in the vicinity of fountains. Yet others steal vital parts from electric switch-boxes and substations, supremely indifferent to the attendant risk of fire and loss of life and property. Other acts of vandalism include painting slogans on bus shelters, telephone booths, bridges and walls, affixing posters and banners on public and private property, thus defacing public property. Apart from defacement of such property, such slogans often are not of a nature calculated to keep the peace. There are yet others who scrawl on walls or deface or destroy property for sheer devilment or mischief. However, Members will, I am sure, agree that it is imperative to make provision in the law for deterrent punishment which this Bill now before the House seeks to do. I need hardly say that the existing punishment provided for such offences is, as the Member for Choa Chu Kang has pointed out, a fine not exceeding $50, and has in the present context proved to be wholly inadequate as a deterrent measure.

This Bill provides that where any person steals, destroys or damages any public property, or without the written consent of the owner or occupier in the case of private property or without written authority in the case of public property, paints or marks any public or private property, or affixes any poster or placard or any bunting or banner with any slogan or caricature on, in or from any such property, or attempts to do the same or causes the same to be damaged, he is to be caned on conviction in addition to being fined or imprisoned.

It is proposed to move amendments to the Bill in Committee whereby the number of strokes insofar as caning is concerned is to be specified and the period of imprisonment increased. But we will say more about that in Committee. The punishment of caning has been introduced advisedly and after considerable thought. It has been found in practice that while many convicted persons will accept without demur a heavy fine or even a lengthy sentence of imprisonment, they tend to view with the greatest alarm and despondency any sentence which requires the infliction of caning. This is, of course, typical of the mentality of the bully and the coward and of those who choose to perpetrate their offences under cover of darkness, which is, in fact, the case with the majority of acts of this sort. Caning has accordingly been made mandatory upon conviction and the Court is required to impose such a sentence, though their acceptance prohibits the infliction of corporal punishment on a teenager, and the Court is given a further discretion not to impose corporal punishment where the prisoner is more than 50 years of age. These prohibitions have been inserted in order that the general rules governing the infliction of corporal punishment now to be found in the Criminal Procedure Code are not contradictory. Caning will also not be imposed on a first conviction where the act of vandalism comprises drawing or marking with pen, pencil, crayon, chalk or other delible substance but not with an indelible substance such as paint. Neither will a person be caned on a first conviction for affixing or displaying posters or hanging or suspending banners as it would only be fair to equate both these offences with the punishment for delible writing since posters can be torn off easily enough and banners taken down. All these detailed provisions are deemed necessary in order that this new legislation may effectively achieve its object.

Among the amendments to the Bill which it is proposed to move in Committee are the introduction of two important clauses: one relating to presumptions in the law of evidence and the other to second-hand dealers who receive stolen State property.

Mr Speaker, Sir, by a two-pronged move, one, dealing as severely as possible with the malefactor who is the actual perpetrator of the act of vandalism and, secondly, by cutting off his avenue for the sale of such property as well as by cancelling the licences of second-hand dealers convicted of receiving such stolen property, we hope to remove this blot on the fair name of the Republic.

Mr Speaker: Mr Wee, do you wish to reply?

Mr Wee Toon Boon indicated dissent.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: Mr Wee, the White Paper on Currency that the Minister for Finance promised has arrived and I believe Members are anxious to have a look at it. So would it be a convenient time to suspend and we will take the Committee stage immediately after the suspension?

Mr Wee Toon Boon indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: In that case, I will suspend the sitting of the House now and resume at half-past five. Order, order.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.58 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.