CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION REPORT (Statement by the Minister for Law and National Development)

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Speaker: Order. A Ministerial Statement. Mr Barker

2.31 p.m.

Mr E. W. Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, Members will recall that I made a Ministerial Statement in Parliament on 22nd December last year on the setting up of a Constitutional Commission under the chairmanship of the Honourable the Chief Justice, with the Speaker as Deputy Chairman, and consisting of eminent legal persons, with the following terms of reference:

(a) To receive and consider representations on how the rights of the racial, linguistic and religious minorities can be adequately safeguarded in the Constitution.

(b) To consider what provisions should be made to ensure that no legislation, which by its practical application is considered likely to be discriminatory against members of any racial, linguistic or religious group, should be enacted before adequate opportunities have been given for representation from parties likely to be aggrieved.

(c) To consider what remedies should be provided for any citizen or group of citizens who claim that he or they have been discriminated against by any act or decision of the government or the administration or any statutory board or public body constituted by law and to recommend the machinery for the redress of any complaints.

(d) To consider how such provisions can be entrenched in the Constitution.

The Commission presented its Report to the President on 27th August, 1966, and copies of this Report have been tabled before this House for information and study by Members. This valuable Report is the culmination of careful deliberation by eminent legal personalities and I wish to record Government's appreciation of their public service. I wish to take the opportunity also to thank the various individuals and organisations listed in the Appendices to the Report, for their representations and views which were of much assistance to the Commission.

The recommendations of the Commission have received the very careful consideration of Government and I am glad to state that most of the recommendations are acceptable in their entirety. On others, while Government agrees in principle to the recommendations, it differs in the detailed recommendations. A few of the recommendations, however, are not acceptable.

The Commission has made various recommendations in regard to the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual and the manner in which the various provisions of the Constitution ought to be entrenched. The Commission has also suggested the creation of a non-elected advisory body to be called the "Council of State", with a small membership, not subject to dissolution but renewing itself at regular intervals by the retirement and replacement of a proportion of its members in rotation, and the creation of the office of Ombudsman (or Parliamentary Commissioner). The Commission also touched on two matters not expressly covered by their specific terms of reference, namely, the Judiciary and the Public Service Commission.

I shall deal briefly with these recommendations. At Chapter II of their Report, the Commission makes recommendations in regard to the protection of the right of life and personal liberty of the individual, the prohibition of slavery and all forms of forced labour, protection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trials, equality of all persons before the law, prohibition of banishment and freedom of movement, freedom of speech, assembly and association and religion. All these recommendations are acceptable to Government. The Commission has also recommended the inclusion of three new Articles not written in the Malaysian Constitution, viz. -

(i) the right of every individual not to be subjected to torture;

(ii) the granting to the citizens of Singapore the right to elect a Government of their own choice; and

(iii) the right to apply to court for the enforcement of those provisions relating to fundamental rights and liberties.

These are all acceptable in principle and will be incorporated in some form in the new Constitution to be drawn up.

With regard to property rights, the Commission recognises the fact that Singapore is only a small island of 225 square miles and more and more land will be required for public purposes as the population increases. The Commission therefore does not recommend the reintroduction of Article 13 of the Constitution of Malaysia in its present form. However, the Commission recommends that there should he an Article in the Constitution providing as follows:

(1) No person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law.

(2) No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property except for a public purpose or a purpose useful or beneficial to the public and except upon just terms.'

The Government would accept this Article but for the words at the end, namely, "and except upon just terms".

Members may be aware that we have, at various times while within Malaysia, sought to amend Article 13 of the Malaysian Constitution in its application to Singapore. The intention was to follow the provisions in the Indian Constitution so that any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of property shall be valid so long as that law provides for compensation and that such a law shall not be questioned in court as to the adequacy of the compensation. The new Land Acquisition Act, which has been passed by this House and will be brought into force shortly, provides for the setting up of a Lands Appeals Board and it is not considered desirable that the intentions of that legislation should be stifled by landowners being able to raise constitutional issues when disputes over the quantum of compensation arise.

The Commission has recommended three methods of entrenchment in respect of various provisions of the Constitution.

The first method is a provision in the Constitution that the Bill for an Act of Parliament altering the Constitution shall not be passed by Parliament until it is expressed to be one for amendment of the Constitution and contains no other provision.

The second method is a provision in the Constitution that the Bill for an Act of Parliament altering certain named provisions of the Constitution shall not be passed by Parliament unless the Bill is supported at the final voting in Parliament by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all the elected Members of Parliament.

The third method is that any alteration of certain provisions can only be made by the affirmative vote of a very substantial majority of people qualified to vote in general elections as well as of a very substantial majority of the legislature.

The Government has given very careful consideration to all three methods and the implications of each and has decided, in the situation now prevailing in Singapore, to adopt the second method of entrenchment. All those recommendations accepted by the Government and also recommended by the Commission for entrenchment will be so entrenched.

In regard to the recommendation on the creation of a non-elected advisory body to be called "the Council of State", while Government agrees in principle to the creation of such a body, it differs in the suggested composition and functions. Further, it is the view of Government that it would be more in keeping with its purely advisory capacity for the Council of State to sit in private rather than in public. This will also ensure that discussions taking place are frank and constructive and not held with an eye on the Press or publicity or with a view to scoring a political point. Membership of this Council, which will be analagous to the Privy Council, would be of two types -

(i) Permanent members: This would consist of men of distinction who will be chosen from those who hold or have held high offices, e.g. Cabinet Ministers, former Chief Ministers, the Chief Justice, the Speaker, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Puisne Judges, the Attorney-General and former Permanent Secretaries. There would be no age limit;

(ii) Members who are removable: Appointments would be on the advice of Cabinet and would be for a fixed period of, say, three years, Persons appointed would be mature citizens who have either rendered distinguished public service or attained eminence in their respective walks of life regardless of race, colour or creed as recommended by the Commission.

In regard to the recommendation on the creation of the office of Ombudsman or Parliamentary Commissioner, while Government is in agreement with the thinking behind this recommendation, it is considered that the time is not opportune for the introduction of such an office in Singapore. Members may be aware that the system of the Ombudsman, which has its origins in Scandinavia and seems to be working fairly satisfactorily there, is a novel idea insofar as the Commonwealth is concerned. New Zealand is the first Commonwealth country to have an Ombudsman - the system, having been introduced there recently, is still in its experimental state. It is considered that the creation of the Ombudsman on the lines of the recommendations of the Commission should be deferred until the results of the experiment in New Zealand and elsewhere are known.

The Commission also made recommendations - not expressly covered by their terms of reference - in regard to the Judiciary and the Public Service Commission. The Commission has recommended that provision be made in the Constitution vesting the power of appointment of judges in the High Court and other superior judges, in the President acting on the advice of a body comprising the superior judges and presided over by the holder of the highest judicial office in the Republic. It is, however, considered that the present practice, whereby judges are appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister who consults the incumbent Chief Justice before tendering such advice to the President, has hitherto worked satisfactorily and should continue. It is considered undesirable that judges as a body should form a self-perpetuating group, detached from the community and the elected political leadership. The recommendation that provision be made in the Constitution for the remuneration of judges to be provided by law and to be charged on the Consolidated Fund, for the remuneration and other terms of office (including pension rights, allowances, etc.) of a judge to be unalterable to his disadvantage during the tenure of his appointment and for the non-abolition of a judicial office so long as it has a substantive holder, is acceptable. It is agreed that the remuneration of judges should be such as to attract the ablest men of high professional ability.

With regard to the Public Service Commission, it is agreed that the Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission should be persons who can command the respect and enjoy the confidence of all sections of the population. They should be men of high administrative ability and wide experience and should not be members of any political party. In this connection, consideration will be given to enlargement of the membership of the Public Service Commission.

2.49 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Speaker, Sir, as you are aware, this Report has just been presented to this House for the information of Members here only five minutes ago. I feel that by doing it in this manner, Members who may be interested to have a debate on it are deprived of the opportunity. May I ask the Minister whether he will give an opportunity to Members of this House to debate on this Report?

Mr Speaker: Before I call upon the Minister to reply, I must state, Mr Ho, that your saying that the Report was available only five minutes ago is not correct. My information is that it was available at 2 o'clock. Mr Barker.

Mr Barker: Sir, we will not be in Parliament after today, but I can assure the hon. Member for Bras Basah that when we next meet here again probably early next year, Members of the House will he given ample opportunity to debate the contents of the Report and the Government's views thereon.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I only want to know from the Minister when the Ombudsman was introduced in New Zealand.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, my understanding is that the relevant New Zealand Bill was first tabled in their Parliament sometime in 1961, that the Bill became law in 1962, and that the New Zealand Ombudsman (or Parliamentary Commissioner) was appointed on the 1st of October, 1962.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, from a perusal of this Report, it appears to me that the recommendations of this Report are unanimous. Nevertheless I would like to ask a question -was there any dissenting voice on this Report?

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Report is a unanimous Report. There was no dissenting voice, though the members of the Commission were multi-racial and multi-religious; hence the value of the Report.

Mr Speaker: I do not think I will allow any further questions in view of the Minister's indication of a full opportunity for debate.

2.53 p.m.