MONEYLENDERS ORDINANCE (Implementation of provisions)

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Ho See Beng asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether he is satisfied with the implementation of the provisions in the Moneylenders Ordinance prohibiting moneylenders harassing their customers either at their place of work or in their homes, and what steps he will take for the better enforcement of these provisions.

Mr E. W. Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, section 33 of the Moneylenders Ordinance provides that:

`Any moneylender, who, either personally or by any person acting on his behalf, harasses or intimidates his debtor or any member of the debtor's family at, or watches or besets the residence or place of business or employment of the debtor, or any place at which the debtor receives his wages or any other sum periodically due to him, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and imprisonment:'

I am not satisfied that the intention behind this section has been achieved. A successful prosecution under this section would require the debtor to give evidence that he has been harassed or intimidated or that his residence has been besetted by a specific moneylender. Unfortunately, it would appear that debtors are reluctant to come forward with specific complaints. Since the coming into force of the Moneylenders Ordinance on the 11th of September, 1959, there has not been one single instance of a specific complaint to the Registrar of Moneylenders by any debtor to enable a prosecution to be launched under this section of the Ordinance. Amendments to the Moneylenders Ordinance are at present under consideration. One suggestion has been to amend section 33 to make the offence a seizable one. This is to enable any registered moneylenders seen loitering at doorways of Government departments and offices of statutory boards and other commercial organisations to be arrested on the spot on the presumption that they are there for the purpose of committing an offence under this section. However, it would still be necessary for debtors to come forth with evidence if convictions are to be obtained.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): A supplementary question, Sir,It is not because the debtors are reluctant to come forward to give evidence. In the Government General Orders, there is a provision which prohibits civil servants from getting themselves into debt. But it is an open secret today that many civil servants are indebted. They are harassed by the money-lenders and dare not make a report. Once they make a report, they themselves will get into trouble. If the Government can do something about General Order 158, probably the debtors will dare come forward and give evidence. Is the Government prepared to amend or withdraw General Order 158?

Mr Speaker: That is more a matter for the Minister for Finance than the Minister for Law. But, Mr Barker, do you wish to answer that question?

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, that, as you have put it, is another question. Some years ago, if I understand the position right, all civil servants were given the opportunity to declare what debts they had. After that, they were not supposed to borrow again. If a civil servant, after declaring his debts, gets further into debt, then he has only himself to blame. But whether or not the relevant Government Order should or should not be revoked is surely a matter which is confined only to civil servants. As far as the general public is concerned, there should be no fear about making complaints against money-lenders. But not one other debtor - by other debtor I mean a non-civil servant - has made any complaint since 1959.