CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL

3.14 p.m.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 132 of the Revised Edition)."

Bill read the First time.

Second Reading

Mr Speaker: Second Reading, what day?

Mr Barker: Now, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of this Bill.

Certificate of Urgency handed in.

Mr Speaker: The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Mr Barker: Yes, Sir.

Typed copies of the Bill distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Bill that is now before the House has been introduced by Government in order to bring about certain amendments to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to bail. As in all countries that have inherited their systems of law and criminal justice from the English legal system, an accused person is presumed innocent until he has been convicted of the offence with which he has been charged. From this fundamental precept, there follows the equally fundamental rule which can be regarded as one of the cornerstones of every administration that practises democracy, namely, the right to bail which is accorded to every accused person awaiting trial. And so in constitutional laws governing the procedure in all criminal trials, we find rules ensuring the offer of bail to every accused person who stands charged with an offence. However, as hon. Members of the House will appreciate, all these fundamental precepts would be made a mockery of if they were to be applied as absolute rules unbending and regardless of circumstances, variations, or situations that must occur in any given case. And so even in the Criminal Procedure Code as it now stands, there are exceptions where bail must be refused altogether - for example, in cases of murder and treason and such like offences.

Again there are cases where the offer of bail is not as of right but at the discretion of the court, and, lastly, a third category comprising the majority of offences in which bail is offered as of right to accused persons pending trial. One could therefore say that as a general rule our Criminal Procedure Code requires that bail be offered as of right to the alleged criminal. And this is even so in regard to offences against public tranquillity which are grouped together under Chapter VIII of Schedule A to the Code. All such offences like rioting and unlawful assembly are bailable as of right. This, in effect, means that the accused person must be offered bail, irrespective of the difficulties that might be faced by the prosecution in their efforts to get up their case by reason of the accused being let out free and irrespective of the number of times the accused person continues to commit the same offence whilst awaiting trial for the offence with which he has been charged.

The experience of the last few months of rioting and destruction of public and private property in the Republic has emphasised the inadequacies of certain of the present provisions in our rules of procedure requiring the offer of bail as of right. Persons charged under section 144 for joining an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons must, in accordance with our present rules of procedure, be offered bail as of right. Again, persons charged under section 145 for joining or continuing in an unlawful assembly, knowing that it has been commanded to disperse, are likewise to be offered bail. The offer of bail is again obligatory and must be made to persons charged with rioting or rioting armed with deadly weapons or with offences committed by one of their number whilst they form part of an unlawful assembly, or hiring or engaging or employing persons to take part in an unlawful assembly. Again, persons who knowingly join or continue in an assembly of five or more persons after it has been commanded to disperse, are treated in exactly the same way as persons charged with assaulting or obstructing public servants when suppressing a riot. Such persons under the existing law will have to be offered bail even though there is the likelihood that they would continue to commit the same offences whilst awaiting trial. Persons who wantonly give provocation with intent to cause a riot, are entitled as of right to bail, even if a riot ensues, and no amount of objections on the part of the law enforcement officers can confer upon the court the right to refuse bail. All those accused of such offences which militate against a well-ordered society are bailable and to the extent of denying even the courts who are given the authority and jurisdiction to decide upon their guilt or otherwise, the right to consider whether or not in the particular circumstances in any given case, bail should be refused.

But ever since the Barisan Sosialis decided to carry out their struggle outside Parliament and to abjure the constitutional process, Communist Front members have mounted a campaign to disrupt law and order in our society as evidenced by their demonstrations in the streets and their wanton destruction of both public and private property. The Government cannot afford to ignore this organised threat to the public peace, and recent events have emphasised the need to tighten our laws in respect of bail. The Police have evidence to show that those who have been charged with rioting and destruction of property have, after their being charged in court and let out on bail, gone back to commit the very same crimes for which they had already been charged.

The Government owes a duty to the people of Singapore to ensure that such lawless gangs of hooligans, whatever their ideologies and whatever their political persuasions may be, should not be allowed to take advantage of the liberalism of our democratic system to undermine democracy itself.

These present rules which were devised during an era of comparative peace and quiet must not be allowed to be abused by those who seek to destroy the very basis and fabric of our society whilst sheltering under the benefit of the very laws they so flagrantly flout.

The provisions in this Bill have been designed to correct these apparent defects in our procedural laws. The amendments contained in this Bill will therefore make the offences I have mentioned earlier non-bailable. And I wish to make it clear that this does not mean that bail would automatically be refused to accused persons charged with offences against the public tranquillity. This will merely mean that the courts will now be given a discretion to allow or to refuse bail according to the circumstances of each case. The result of these amendments would be, in other words, to confer upon the court jurisdiction to refuse bail in respect of these offences when heretofore the offer of bail was obligatory and no amount of objections on the part of the prosecution would make any difference.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as you know, the terms "bailable" and "non-bailable" have acquired special technical meanings in our laws and these specialised meanings have been derived from those basic fundamental precepts that I have enunciated at the beginning of my speech to the House. Offences that are termed "bailable" are those where the general rule is that an accused person must be offered bail. And offences that are termed "non-bailable" merely mean that those charged with these offences are still entitled to apply for bail but each and every application will have to be considered according to its merits. In regard to non-bailable offences, if having regard to all the circumstances of the case the court arrives at the conclusion that the interests of the community at large must prevail over those of the individual, then it may refuse bail in respect of such offences.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is always reluctant to take any Bill on a Certificate of Urgency through three Readings in one day. But yesterday's disgraceful events outside and inside a Magistrate's Court in Singapore are without a doubt very good reasons for taking this Bill through three stages today. Some of those who had been given bail and had under the terms of their bail to appear before the Court yesterday misbehaved not only outside but, judging by mere reports in the newspapers, inside the Court as well. They behaved in a manner unheard of in the history of our Courts.

Mr Speaker: Mr Barker, can I have an assurance that their behaviour is not the subject of a charge?

Mr Barker: I am just finishing, Sir,I was going to say that meanwhile investigations are proceeding, and I wish to make no further comments at this stage on what transpired except that surely any Court in such circumstances should be given at least the discretion to refuse bail.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.32 p.m.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo (Bukit Merah): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, touching on the speech made by the Minister for Law and on the Bill introduced by him, I would like to express my full support for both his speech and the Bill.

In our newly independent country there have been many incidents which would justify the passing of this kind of law. The original purpose of the law is not to ask people to commit any offences and then to bind them by the stipulations of the law. The law is meant only to prevent the commission of any offences by anyone who disregards common interests or the security of the nation. So in passing the law, the preventive side should also be emphasised. But in the existing law, namely, the Criminal Procedure Code, there are certain loopholes which any intending offender may use to commit certain offences, and when they are prosecuted in Court they can seek the provisions of the law to get bail, and thus be free to commit further offences.

So this provision of the right of bail would benefit them by giving them another opportunity to commit further offences. The time allowed them outside the Court before trial is used by them to commit further offences and to jeopardise the interests of the public. From this we can see that more and more people will be encouraged to take advantage of the loopholes in the existing law.

Since our country is not a Communist country, we cannot see the type of mass open trial of people such as that prevailing in Communist countries. But we can see incidents where people have committed various types of offences And if such people were brought to Court, there would be a scene which would not be nice to look at. On such an occasion the law may be at a loss to deal with them.

So in legislating we must also pay attention to further aspects relating to the protection of the people. Some people may think that the result of the trial may not be of any significance to them. As long as these offenders can be bailed out, they will continue to commit offences as before. So if we were to retain the old provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code without any amendment, we would be encouraging such people and not protecting the people as a whole. And the law would not be able to meet our obligation to protect the people.

We can also see that most of these offenders are still young. Our present younger generation are growing up and receiving education, and they are subject to various influences. In introducing this amendment Bill, we should bear in mind the magnanimity of the law, because we know that the law is meant to protect our people and not really to punish the offenders only. If we do not direct our law to a specific field, then we may allow a situation to develop when we may have to deal with one case on one day and on another day those convicted may want to create more disturbances and commit more serious crimes, if these people are emotional, they may want to burn down a community centre without any regard to whether or not there are any parents or children inside the building. Furthermore, these people have no regard for such inanimate objects as traffic lights and community centres which are made from materials. So if these inanimate objects can be destroyed, then, of course, living objects can also be destroyed by them. If we do not promptly take action to correct the present situation which is worsening, then in future we may be at a loss to deal with even more serious offences. We should be alert to all such possibilities.

I feel that the Criminal Procedure Code needs some amendment, such as what our Minister has just proposed. This amendment is directed at the interests of the people of Singapore and should receive their full support. They should understand the motives and purpose of this amendment Bill. Maybe it would cause unhappiness to some people, because their potential activities might be curbed thereby. But I believe that all patriotic people should sincerely accept this amendment Bill.

Sir, I support it.

3.44 p.m.

Mr Tay Boon Too (Paya Lebar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that the anti-national elements in our Republic are abusing the democratic system and that they have been discarded by the people in general. Mr Speaker, these anti-national elements are committing political suicide. They are on the brink of bankruptcy and are without proper leadership. They are now in despair and have almost become desperadoes. So they resort to violence in order to achieve their aims. They behave like mad dogs barking at and biting people in the streets. Their behaviour causes great distress to the people who think that they are really pathetic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, admittedly in a country which practises parliamentary democracy, personal liberty is of great value. The rights of the individual must be respected. We all concede this point. But we must also realise that personal liberty and personal rights must not go against the interest of the social order and the national security. Our people have the right of freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of thought without interference. But all these freedoms do not mean that we can allow the anti-national elements to create chaos. These are not absolute freedoms, but are freedoms relative to the national interest. So we must not allow these ill-behaved anti-national elements to create collective violence and commit acts of hooliganism in the Republic of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, in the past few months various incidents have shown beyond all doubt that a small minority of anti-national elements have some plans which they intend to carry out stage by stage in order to cause damage and create chaos in our society. They are causing great damage to public property which is paid for at the expense of the rate-payers and the general public. They have no regard for public property. They carry on their so-called struggle outside Parliament. Mr Speaker, we also know that in many constituencies in our Republic there are certain remote areas which are quite favourable for anti-national elements to carry out their nefarious activities. It is in these areas that their activities are rife. They go on a rampage in these places, resorting to violence, hooliganism and even sometimes committing acts of robbery. Mr Speaker, under cover of darkness, these people cause great damage to public property by using axes and other weapons. These happen in out-of-the-way places and away from the arm of the law. We know that the people in the rural areas are quite appreciative of the value of the recreational opportunities given to them through the community centres. They all make use of the services provided by these centres. But, unfortunately, it is often these areas where the anti-national elements are active. They damage telephone posts, television sets, tables and chairs and other property in the community centres. Their irrational and barbarous acts have aroused the indignation of the people.

Be that as it may, Mr Speaker, the people by themselves are quite helpless and so action must be taken to curb the activities of these anti-national elements. Their violence must he restricted and confined and, if possible, prevented.

Mr Speaker, if the law in Singapore is inadequate to deal with them, if no preventive measures are available under the existing law, then I believe the situation will be further exploited by these anti-national elements. Their violence will be further intensified because of the loopholes in our laws.

Mr Speaker, we are aware that recently there have been frequent occurrences involving young people who have been misguided and misled by the anti-national elements and they have somewhat imitated the cultural revolution that is going on in Red China now. Carrying red flags, they rampaged all over the streets of Singapore, shouting slogans and causing damage everywhere. In addition, they caused traffic jams and great damage to traffic lights. They have also damaged the property of people by burning vehicles in the streets. All this disregard for the rule of law and the interest of the public should never be condoned or connived at. Strict action must be taken to deal with such misbehaviour and violence. Otherwise Singapore will become an anarchic State and representative government will have failed in its duty towards the people. Therefore, as a representative Government having the mandate of the people, we have the responsibility - a great responsibility, indeed, Mr Speaker - to ensure that there is social order and happiness among our people. In other words, we must take all possible action to protect the people, their property and their lives from these anti-national elements. This is our solemn duty. In order that there is peace in our country and to ensure that the people of Singapore are able to continue their normal way of life, I fully support this amendment Bill. I believe it will go a long way towards preventing further damage and violence by the anti-national elements. They will not be able to stay at large under the protective cover of bail to carry out further damage and create more chaos in our State.

The area of this small island Republic of Singapore is only 225 square miles. It is not a place for those who know only how to shout Communist slogans. Our new Republic wants to go forward and become viable. We are taking all possible action to develop our country - building multi-storey flats and schools, improving the traffic system and erecting more traffic lights - so as to enhance our standard of living. So we cannot allow these hooligans and anti-national elements to put a spoke in our wheel.

Finally, Mr Speaker, let me reiterate my full support for this amendment Bill.

3.54 p.m.

Inche Mahmud Awang (Kampong Kapor): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, on those of us who have made the Republic of Singapore their Republic and who have no cause to come to any headlong collision with the law, this Bill, which seeks to amend the Criminal Procedure Code, will have no effect. To those who are responsible for the maintenance of law and order, and the Government in particular, these changes appear to be necessary, if only to ensure that all of us who claim the protection of the law may not he deprived of this right. The law as it now stands has not been amended for a very long time. But what has been provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code has during the course of the last few weeks been found to be quite inadequate. It would appear that the Criminal Procedure Code, as it is, lays down the general rule that there must be an offer of bail to all persons charged with any criminal offence for the period that such person is awaiting trial. The right of bail always exists, provided the court is satisfied that sufficient guarantees can be provided to ensure the appearance of the accused person in court on the day of his trial.

[Mr Tang See Chim in the Chair]

4.00 p.m.

Inche Mahmud Awang (Kampong Kapor): In other words, any person charged with a criminal offence is given bail. In this respect, not all the provisions in the law are altered. The only changes contemplated lie in regard to the courts who can now refuse bail if they are satisfied, for example, that the accused is likely to interfere with evidence or with witnesses for the prosecution, or that he is likely to commit the same or other criminal offences during the period he is on bail. The need to amend the provisions relating to bail in respect of these offences, which after all have been devised to ensure that public peace and order is maintained, cannot be overemphasised. These changes in the law, as far as I can see, make no radical departure from the generally recognised principles of fair trial and equal protection under the law. A man charged is still presumed innocent if he is allowed bail. There are people who have been charged and who, during the period they are on bail and before their trial, are likely to commit the same offence which will disturb public peace and destroy public property. As an example, I read in today's Straits Times an incident which occurred yesterday. Persons who were on bail damaged public property to the extent that the magistrate, who was trying them, was unable `to do anything good for the Republic so that law and order may prevail. If I were the magistrate yesterday, I would have pressed the button and called for the Reserve Unit to arrest them and charge them again. But, unfortunately, I was not the magistrate.

Sir, the judicial authority must he satisfied that if bail is granted, the accused will not interfere with evidence nor with the witnesses for the prosecution, and that he will not commit a further criminal offence. The results achieved by these amendments should not in any way prejudice any of the democratic principles of the rule of law that one finds in all the declarations on human rights and criminal procedure codes. The fundamental rights of the individual under the law should be safeguarded as always. So we must not think only of those who offend the law and forget about the rest of our people who are law-abiding and who have a right to claim the protection of the law. This aspect of the matter will no doubt be taken into consideration by the court in deciding whether to grant bail or not. The court is merely given the discretion to allow or to refuse bail. As one concerned with the liberty of the individual as well as the security of the Republic, and as one who is desirous of seeing that the rule of law is not defeated by its very provisions on procedure, I would not hesitate to give my wholehearted support for these changes in the law. In my view, these changes are necessary and appear to be a fair and proper manner of achieving what must be the desired object of a well administered country, namely, an effective means of ensuring that law and order prevails and that the well-being of its citizens is in no way impaired.

4.08 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): Sir, I fully support the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill. In the present circumstances and for the sake of respecting our national dignity, public interest, political security, economic prosperity and social order, and in order to allow our two million people to live in peace, I feel it is necessary to amend the present law. We know that the purpose of the amendment Bill is not to allow those who carry out anti-national, destructive and sabotage activities to avail themselves of the bail provided in the law and come out free and be able to carry out such activities again. The Minister has said that some people on bail have continued to commit the same offence for which they are prosecuted. From this we can see that it is necessary to amend the present law relating to bail granted to a person who is accused of a certain offence. So this is a pressing problem for us. Ours is a responsible government which looks after the interests of the people. We have the trust laid upon us by the general masses and we should try our best to rule the country and serve the people well.

Recently the anti-national Barisan Sosialis have carried out a series of riots and demonstrations, causing social disorder with a view to disrupting the peace and good order of our society and hindering our economic and industrial development. They hope by such acts to destroy our democratic system and create a situation in which our economy will become bankrupt and the people will be dissatisfied, so that the time may be ripe for them to engage in their so-called revolution. Sir, their actions are obviously very sinister. They hope that there would be disorder and general chaos in the Republic, and they want to put a stop to the national security, peace and prosperity which we are now enjoying. In fact, the peace, prosperity and happiness of our country has been the result of the arduous work and efforts of our Government, with the co-operation of the people. We can say that Singapore is the most peaceful and prosperous country in South-East Asia. In order to preserve the national prosperity and peace and interests of the people, we, the Government, have a responsibility to see that such anti-national elements cannot carry on with their activities, such as damaging public property, breaking of street lights, upsetting rubbish bins and various other acts. Such barbaric and uncultured acts have caused great indignation among the people. Therefore, today before this House there is this Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill under a Certificate of Urgency. I feel that all the people expect this Bill to be passed quickly in order to deal with the situation.

Sir, as for the families of those who have been prosecuted for their recent offences, I feel that they would also welcome this amendment Bill because, as parents or as relatives of such people, their children may become useful and law-abiding citizens and live in the proper way with the passing of this Bill into law.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

4.14 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): I support this Bill because it will enable such offenders to repent and turn over a new leaf. In fact, those people who are misled by the Barisan Sosialis into participating in various anti-national activities are young people. They have been excited and fooled by the Barisan's high tune and revolutionary slogans. They go out into the streets to carry out revolutionary actions, chanting slogans and yelling abusive language. But when the police patrol cars arrive, these brave revolutionaries do not carry out their struggle constitutionally but they throw stones at the police and disperse. From all this, we can see that most of the members of this so-called voluntary vanguard have been fooled into taking part in such illegal activities. But when they meet the police, they take to their heels as quickly as possible!

The Barisan Sosialis have announced that they will carry on with the struggle outside Parliament by instituting what they call the "Anti Three Harms Campaign" in order to overthrow the P.A.P, and establish their own regime. But what is surprising is that their engineered demonstrations and parades have never been successful. In fact, they have roused the indignation of the masses because, firstly, they destroy community centres which render good services to the people, especially those in the rural areas; secondly, they beat up teachers, and this is a very great moral offence; thirdly, they smash up traffic lights, and this is detrimental to public interest; and, fourthly, they overturn rubbish bins, and this is a health offence. So when they say that they are committing rebellious acts against the Government, they are, in fact, carrying out ridiculous activities which are detrimental to the people. All activities which are against law and order are activities which are detrimental to the interest and well-being of the people. The Barisan Sosialis will only succeed in isolating themselves from the people. I, therefore, hope that the policy planners of the Barisan Sosialis will think twice about their present policies and check themselves in time from committing suicide by such actions.

4.19 p.m.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to give my full support to this amendment Bill moved by the Minister for Law and National Development.

Sir, it is a pity that this Bill should have been tabled today. It should have been tabled much earlier when anti-national elements went on a wild rampage to destroy public property and caused fear and insecurity to the people of the Republic.

Sir, the agitators behind such wild mobs are cowards. They remain behind plotting and prodding young innocent school children to agitate against all sorts of amendments introduced in Parliament. Actually, it is a disguise. Some time ago, the Barisan Sosialis decided to take up the political struggle outside Parliament when they called on their Members to resign. To me, this is an evil design. They hope to build up an atmosphere on which the pro-Communists and Communists hope to capitalise and ultimately seize power on an unconstitutional basis.

Regarding the riots that have taken place over the last few months, one can easily see that young innocent school children are being used - children who have too low a mentality to distinguish between right and wrong and between what can be done and what cannot be done. One can also see that the real persons behind such acts of vandalism should come forward and not stay behind and merely act as operators. I brand these persons as sheer cowards. They try to provoke our police. I was told that in the incident yesterday outside the premises of the Fourth Magistrate's Court our police officers were not only jeered at but were also kicked with the aim of provoking them into stronger action against innocent children who were being made use of by sinister people behind the scenes. These people had hoped that our law enforcement officers would be provoked into losing their patience and turning on the children. But far from it, I am glad to note that these officers, in spite of extreme provocation, acted with great restraint and did not lose their nerve. If the agitators had succeeded and a good number of young innocent students had been injured in yesterday's incident - and this is what they had wanted to see - they would have said to foreign correspondents and cameramen, "There you are, the P.A.P. Government is bad and dictatorial. It uses strong-armed tactics on these innocent children who are fighting for a good cause." Such techniques are not uncommon, and if I remember well, there were similar incidents a couple of years ago when the Chinese system of education was slightly modified. Our former Minister for Education, who is now the Minister for Health, was besieged in his own office by students who had prevented him from coming to this Assembly. But we were cool and patient in the handling of such students and in the end justice prevailed and we were proved to be right.

As I have said, students have been used by the pro-Communists and Communists to further their ends. Their main objective is to cause incidents which they hope will culminate in a revolutionary atmosphere so that they can achieve their ends. I do not think that the people of Singapore are with them, Far from it - many have come to me and asked, "What are these chaps doing? They behave like hooligans. Why does the Government not deal firmly with them? They are giving us a bad name. Ours is a democratic country where the practice of democracy is still sustained." I think the agitators will do well to get it into their thick heads that the P.A.P. Government will never wilt under any provocation whatsoever. There must be law and order in our society. Lawlessness will not be tolerated, and until these people get this into them, they should think twice. For that reason, I would urge that further amendments should be introduced so as to empower the Government to deal more firmly with such agitators.

Sir, I beg to support the Bill.

4.31 p.m.

Mr Lim Soo Peng (Havelock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill which seeks to deprive offenders of their automatic right to bail when arrested for unlawful gathering and for offences of rioting.

The House today is not discussing the theory of liberty or the abstract rights of the individual. We are facing a situation in which a small band of political bankrupts has openly declared that it will take to street violence as its form of struggle, the irony of which is that it is supposed to be struggling for democracy. In the name of democracy, are we supposed to allow social wreckers to stage lightning attacks on lamp posts, traffic lights, bus stands and community centres? And then when the police comes they immediately seek the shelter of anonymity in the innocent pasar malam crowd of shoppers. Are we to allow such social perverts the right to automatic bail, in the legal term, "bailable as of right", so that they can be released for further hit-and-hide ventures or to terrorise witnesses from giving evidence? Our clear duty today is to see that our people can go about without fear, that our facilities erected at public expense are not damaged, and that our law enforcing officers are not handcuffed.

For the past month, owing to the prevailing uncertain conditions existing in certain countries in this region, substantial investment funds have flown from there. Some of the funds landed here. In my role as a businessman and a manufacturer, I have come across many instances where these overseas funds are seeking investments here. This House knows only too well that we need every cent of those funds for investment, if we are to solve our unemployment problem. Unfortunately, this is not sufficiently realised by those misguided few who, by committing such acts, destroy their own chances of employment. To these misguided few, I say, please think carefully; our country, our people, and our Government are doing everything possible to industrialise in order to create more job opportunities. By taking to street violence, you are scaring away foreign investors as well as local entrepreneurs. This means that there will be less factories which, in turn, means that you may remain jobless.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the present technological age, we need anything between $20,000 and $100,000 to create one job. Massive investments are needed. Hooliganism must stop if we are to retain and attract investments. Our duty today is not only to preserve law and order but also at the same time to increase job opportunities. The surest way to do so is to diminish the rights of those who violate the rights of others. There can be no question of right when rights are abused by a minority to destroy the rights of the majority. I sincerely hope that the day will not come when we may have to take away completely the possibility of bail for those who are bent on wrecking our society. At the moment, the least we can do is to deprive these social wreckers of the automatic right of bail.

4.37 p.m.

Mr Tang See Chim (Choa Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst I generally am, not in favour of Bills being introduced on a Certificate of Urgency, I must support the Minister for Law and National Development in this case. In view of the recent increasing demonstrations and unlawful activities by anti-nationalist elements, I readily appreciate that urgent provisions are required to deal with these agitators and demonstrators.

Just this morning we read in the newspapers of the disturbances both outside and inside a Magistrate's Court. We: have heard in this House this very afternoon the statement of the Minister of State of Defence that since January this year unlawful assemblies and demonstrations have increased month by month. We have also heard from the Minister introducing the Bill that there was evidence that some of the demonstrators charged under the Penal Code while on bail were again committing the same offences. And, Mr Speaker, Sir, in my constituency of Choa Chua Kang, a brand-new community centre built by the people in my constituency out of their own money was tarred and painted on with slogans by anti-nationalist elements. This lack of respect for public property and for law and order requires urgent measures to deal with it.

The changes proposed in the Bill are nothing unusual, Mr Speaker, Sir. In what little time I had, I did a little research and found that originally under the Criminal Procedure Code offences under section 143 of the Penal Code and cognate offences were bailable. In 1957, however, these offences were made non-bailable by amending Ordinance 29 of 1957. But in 1960, these same offences were again made bailable by Ordinance 18 of 1960. Therefore, there is nothing new in this amending Bill at all. It is just a question of making provisions to deal with the special circumstances that are obtaining in Singapore at this particular moment.

The Minister has also explained to us the legal meaning of "non-bailable". It does not mean that a person so charged under this particular section of the Penal Code cannot get bail at all. It only means that instead of the automatic right to bail the person charged would have to make out a case for bail. This does not infringe on the fundamental liberty of the subject and in no way detracts from the subject's fundamental right to a fair trial and equality before the law. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

4.44 p.m.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten): Sir, I stand up to support the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill. During the past few months there have been incidents of rioting, unlawful assemblies, vandalism, processions, and demonstrations organised and instigated by the Barisan Sosialis. Such open defiance of the law by these anti-national elements should be stopped at all costs.

Sir, as you know, the prosperity and survival of the nation depend very much on the political stability and preservation of peace and good order. Any good citizen will detest such despicable acts of open defiance of the law. As is known to all, Sir, the tactics of Communists everywhere are to create confusion and chaos in a country and then topple and take over the administration if the situation gets out of hand, The incidents in the Magistrate's Court yesterday will suffice to prove their evil design, which was to challenge the authority of the magistrate. We should not allow this to happen. We should stand firm and safeguard the interest of our law-abiding citizens by tightening up our existing laws against those anti-national elements who are up to no good and who wish to wreck the security of the country. Since the boycott by the Barisan Sosialis Members of Parliament and their subsequent resignations from Parliament, the Barisan Sosialis have openly declared their determination to carry out their so-called struggle in the streets outside Parliament.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are Red Guards in the People's Republic of China, Here in our Republic we have what I would like to call them in Mandarin Hon liu man, which literally means Red hooligans, as they deserve to be called. These anti-national elements are now out in the streets defying not only police orders and obstructing the duties of the law officers, but also damaging public property. They have gone even further now -they damage even private properties belonging to law-abiding citizens. This is indeed most contemptible and despicable. Mr Speaker, Sir, this House should ask the Government to take drastic action against these anti-national elements and stamp them out once and for all. Sir, Government action alone will not be sufficient. There must be co-operation from the public. There is much that the law-abiding citizens can do in helping to put an end to this open defiance of the law. The public should not regard this as a matter for the Government to solve when, in fact, their daily livelihood and interests are directly involved and their future jeopardised. Civic organisations or registered societies should come out and openly condemn such acts. At least it will have a deterrent effect in that these anti-national elements will not think that their lawless acts have the support of the public.

Sir, I would like to conclude by saying that our laws must be respected and not challenged, and that law and order must be maintained at all costs. Sir, I give my support to this Bill.

4.50 p.m.

Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng (Joo Chiat): Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems shameful that in this matter of rowdyism, destruction of public property and lawlessness, the only voice of protest loud enough to be heard in this island comes from Members of this House, What has happened to our community leaders and the rest of our good citizens? Are they going to stay silent and stay in the background in matters of such civic importance and let a handful of citizens speak for them? Do they not have as much right to this land of ours as the hon. Members of this House? Are our worthy citizens going to stand on the pavement and watch whenever such acts of public misbehaviour and violence are being carried out? Are they not worried that these acts of violence might easily jeopardise the future of our young Republic? We know, Mr Speaker, Sir, that almost a hundred per cent of our population disapprove of and condemn such acts of civic disruption, and I feel it is time that the leaders of our community came out and joined with this House in openly denouncing such acts against the public peace. I, therefore, congratulate the Hon. Minister for Law and National Development on getting the Criminal Procedure Code amended, as I feel every loyal citizen of Singapore will support it.

4.53 p.m.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Back-benchers for expressing their support of this Bill at such short notice. It has been reassuring and gratifying. In the same way I am confident that our citizens outside this House, all of them except for a very small minority, want to live in peace and harmony and will certainly support the provisions of this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Barker].

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