CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL

4.26 p.m.

The Minister of Defence (Mr Lim Kim San): 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 Lim Kim San: Now, Sir,I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment No. 2) Bill of 1967.

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 Lim Kim San: Yes, Sir.

Typed copies of the Bill distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill that is now before the House contains proposed amendments to section 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The reasons for this Bill stem from recent disturbances in the Republic, which had led to the arrest of a few hundred offenders accused of rioting and other cognate offences. The subsequent proceedings in court and the behaviour of the accused persons when produced in court had emphasised certain inadequacies in our Criminal Procedure Code, especially in regard to the powers of a subordinate court exercising criminal jurisdiction to punish offenders for alleged contempt of court.

The particular case which hon. Members are no doubt familiar with relates to the occasion when the alleged offenders, when produced in court being jointly charged for committing the same offence at the same time and place, had misbehaved in so unruly a manner as to have destroyed furniture in the court itself. This extraordinary behaviour, quite unprecedented in the history of our courts, had brought to the fore the inadequacies of certain portions of our Code of Procedure governing proceedings in our Magistrates' Courts, especially so with regard to the powers of the court to commit for contempt even where the acts complained of are committed in the presence of the court itself.

As the law now stands, Sir, the sole provision - section 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code - under which a subordinate court may summarily punish an offender for contempt only permits the court to impose a fine not exceeding $50. And it is only in cases where default in payment of the fine occurs that imprisonment for a term which may extend to two months may be imposed by the court. Even in such circumstances the period of imprisonment is terminated the moment the fine is paid.

This is the only summary power which a magistrate has in imposing his will or in attempting to lay down law and order in his court. The authority and dignity of the court, it may be said, depend very much on the traditional respect normally accorded to members of the judiciary. Indeed, Sir, the occasion where a magistrate has felt the desire to call in the aid of such provisions as are contained in Chapter 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to maintain the dignity and order of proceedings in court, limited though these powers are, have been quite uncommon. But what had transpired in the course of the morning when the cases of the rioters were mentioned in the Ninth Magistrate's Court in June last emphasises the need to enhance the powers of the magistrate in this regard. Hon. Members will agree that this must be so, especially when flagrant insults and deliberate acts of unruly behaviour calculated to bring the courts into contempt and ridicule must be met with means to impose sufficient deterrents. In order, therefore, that the administration of criminal justice in our subordinate courts may not be solely dependent upon traditional respect and in order that the smooth functioning of the machinery of justice may not be in any way impaired, even though these acts of hooliganism are very much the exception rather than the general rule, the Government have thought it necessary to introduce this Bill.

By the proposed amendments to section 368 of our Criminal Procedure Code, adequate powers will be conferred upon a subordinate court to safeguard its dignity and to ensure its proper ad ministration of law and order. Thus the new section 368 will empower a subordinate court to impose sentences of imprisonment in the first instance, should the need arise, for the court to exercise its summary powers, to commit for con tempt. Furthermore, the maximum fine has also been raised ten times to $500. The court will now have a discretion of imposing either sentences of imprisonment in the first instance or a fine or impose a sentence combining both forms of punishment. The Bill which I am now seeking to move has been introduced on a Certificate of Urgency because of recent events in Singapore which are well known to Members.

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

Question proposed.

4.32 p.m.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to make a general comment on the Bill introduced by the Minister of Defence. As far as I know, the Criminal Procedure Code has been in existence for many years, both in Singapore and in our neighbouring country, Malaysia. In the past, magistrates and district judges were held in high esteem by whoever appeared in court. But nowadays conditions have changed and anti-national elements who are misled by their leaders go around flouting the law and destroying public property, for example, breaking traffic lights, street lights and defacing decorative, colourful arches and scribbling anti-national slogans on public buildings and so on. Therefore, not only do they make a nuisance of themselves but they also cause serious damage to public property by way of public funds. However, those caught in such acts are subsequently charged in court. But when these culprits are produced in court, they even behave in an unruly manner and they do not even respect the court of law. All that the magistrate could do is to impose a fine, a mere sum of $50, for contempt of court or, in default of payment, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to two months unless such fine is sooner paid. This measure, I think, would not be a sufficient deterrent. Therefore, with the amendment of this Bill, the magistrate is given the necessary power to increase the fine ten times, as the Minister of Defence has said, that is, $500, and impose a sentence of three months. This is an essential measure.

Sir, it is universally known that the judiciary is independent, in which case, in exercising its powers, it makes its authority felt. It therefore upholds the respect for law and, therefore, the flouting of the laws of a country cannot be condoned. This is not a lawless society and when those charged under the appropriate sections of the law of the country persist in showing utter contempt for the sanctity of the law, they must be severely dealt with.

To conclude, if I may, if I were to be the Minister of Defence, I would seek heavier terms of punishment, such as flogging. One stroke of the cane would do these anti-national elements a lot of good and, if not, three would definitely do it.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support this amendment Bill introduced by the Minister. Sir, in order to uphold law and order ---

Mr Speaker: I meant to make this remark before Mr Ng spoke. I just wanted to remind Members carefully to avoid any reference to pending cases in the course of their speeches.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I fully support this amendment Bill. In order to uphold the dignity of our courts and maintain law and order so that our country may march forward progressively and become an industrialised country and thus provide a better life for our people, we must deal with these anti-national elements severely and prevent them from committing any malicious acts. Recently these anti-national elements openly flouted the law. They carried out illegal parades and demonstrations and damaged community centres, breaking traffic lights, etc. They have openly shown their contempt of the law in court. They have entirely disregarded law and order. They have caused a lot of inconvenience to members of the public. They have also brought about disrepute and great losses to our country internationally. Ours is a newly-independent country. We are now proceeding with our nation-building. In the past two years, with the harmonious co-operation of the various races and under the judicious leadership of our Government, construction activities have been going on in many flelds, and, as a result, we have made great progress. But it is regretted that these anti-national elements are trying every means to des troy our nation and prevent our progress. They are able to do so because ours is a democratic country and our law is rather lax. It is not strict enough to deal with them. If such acts had been committed in any Communist country, the culprits would have been severely dealt with. For example, they would have been sent to a labour reform camp or sentenced to death.

So today it is very timely that this Bill is introduced in this House. I feel that it will be very effective in dealing with such people. At the same time, I hope that it will also help those who have gone astray to wake up. I hope they will turn over a new leaf and become good and useful citizens.

Sir, we know that the anti-national elements are already bankrupt in political theories. This can be shown by the statements made by the ex-detainees over T.V. Singapura. I hope these anti-national elements will learn from the experiences and the new thinking of their elder brothers. If we want to prevent effectively these illegal acts, in my opinion, other than this Bill, public cooperation and Press editorials are also very effective means in achieving this purpose. With all of them applying their pressure on the anti-national elements, they will achieve the effect desired. I fully support this Bill.

Mr Govindaswamy rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Govindaswamy, I was thinking of taking the suspension now so that anyone who wants time to consider this Bill will have additional time. I will suspend the sitting now and take the Chair again at 5.20 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.45 p.m. until 5.20 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.20 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

Mr Govindaswamy: (In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of Defence has sufficient reasons to introduce this Bill and I support it. If law and order is to be maintained in the country, there is a necessity for strict laws. According to the existing legal provisions, there is a possible imposition of a fine of $50 and up to two months' imprisonment. The proposed amendment imposes a $500 fine and a maximum of three months' imprisonment, or both. Even this increase in fine and the term of imprisonment is not, in my opinion, sufficient. The fine has been increased ten times, but the imprisonment period has been increased by only 50 per cent. The Minister apparently has done this with consideration. In the present circumstances, it is not difficult for a person to pay a fine of $500. Those who have the intention of repeating the same offences would be quite willing to pay a fine of $500. But if, instead of a bigger fine, a longer period of imprisonment is to be imposed, then people will think twice about committing an offence. In any case, this amended provision is necessary to maintain law. Normally we do not bring in amendments to the law unless it is absolutely necessary. In view of the trouble and difficulties created by certain people, the amended provision is really welcome and I fully support it. Further, if we do not bring in this amendment, it is not possible to maintain law and order. Justice cannot survive without stricter legal provisions. The law must help people and people must help the law.

In these circumstances, I praise the Minister and give my support.

5.24 p.m.

Mr P. Selvadurai (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment and endorse fully the words spoken by the Minister of Defence when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill.

The old section 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code would have been satisfactory in normal circumstances when the politics of Singapore ran on an even tenor. Unfortunately for us, certain groups of people in Singapore have of late deliberately taken to the path of bringing the administration of justice in Singapore into hatred, ridicule and contempt. I think it is imperative and important indeed that the hands of our judicial officers are strengthened so that they are able to deal with situations of this kind.

I have in mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, certain events that occurred in the 9th Magistrate's Court recently where, on the magistrate coming into his court, certain persons stood up on the benches and showed their rears to him - a very serious business indeed. I believe that the amendment, as it stands, goes a long way towards acting as a deterrent against this kind of behaviour. We will, however, have to watch the working of this amendment and the efficacy with which it acts as a deterrent to see if any further extensions become necessary in the future, because I personally believe that these actions are politically motivated. They are not the actions of criminally motivated people; they are politically motivated. Provided sufficient funds are forthcoming, they would do the same thing in future.

I would like to raise one or two points of a more technical nature, Mr Speaker, Sir. Section 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides a sanction for offences defined by sections 175, 178, 179, 180 and 228 of the Penal Code. For our purposes the most relevant section is really section 228. If I may briefly refer to the other sections, section 175 refers to omission to produce a document required to be produced by a public officer. Section 178 deals with refusing to take an oath. Section 179 deals with refusing to answer questions by a public servant. Section 180 deals with refusing to sign a statement, and section 228, which is the relevant one, deals with intentionally insulting or interrupting a public servant sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding. I fear that section 228 may not go far enough. The ambit of section 228 may not cover the specific situations that we are faced with, be cause it says, "- a public servant... sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding". It could be argued by any lawyer that persons standing on benches and showing their rears to a magistrate as he came into his court were not covered by the words of section 228. If this is so, then of course the amended section 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code will not come into play. This would stultify what we are trying to do and I would urge that section 228 of the Penal Code itself be looked into by the officials concerned with a view to extending its ambit.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that it is very important indeed that the procedures and processes of the judiciary, being one of the three main pillars on which the democratic structure of the Republic of Singapore rests, are not brought into ridicule and contempt, which is what certain political groups have been trying to do to show the people of Singapore that the institutions of our State are not worth supporting and that they do not represent the people at all. These groups seek to subvert and jeopardise the whole fabric of political life in our Republic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.

5.30 p.m.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: (In Mandarin): The Minister has just introduced this amendment Bill and I lend my full support to it. First of all, one must know that the Criminal Procedure Code is one of the basic laws of our country. This is not a minor Act, unlike other subsidiary legislation. So this law should be made effective in order to achieve the purpose for which it is intended. It is possible that in other countries where there is a different but ideal system to achieve the purposes intended, there is no need for such a law. They may have precedents and other systems. They can still import some legal aspects into their systems, but they are limited in personnel to implement the same law. But Singapore is in a different situation. We have a democratic system and our laws are based on long traditions. We should try to help the Minister perfect our existing laws to suit our present situation.

In the recent past, certain anti-national elements tried to disrupt law and order, but they could not achieve their purpose. The laws of our country are intended to benefit the people but not to restrict or suppress them unreasonably. This amendment Bill imposes only a minor penalty on the anti-national elements. What is important in law is that there should be a clear-cut demarcation between penalty and reward - what merits penalty and what merits reward. A $50 fine may be too small a sum to have any deterrent effect. We have read in the newspapers of events taking place in Hongkong and other places. When a riot or civil commotion is at its height, the people involved will go to the court and write slogans on the walls. Of course, we are not involved in this at the moment, but we should take action to forestall such incidents taking place in our country. There should be certain limits within which activities can be carried out outside the courts. The law should not allow anti-national elements to go beyond these limits. So they now turn on the law itself. This is a situation that we cannot allow to be perpetuated. We should at least improve our present law in order to prevent such occurrences.

I would like to stress one point. Singapore is a democratic country, but it does not mean that we should weaken the rule of law. That is not what we want, if the anti-national elements want to avail themselves of our democratic system to further their nefarious ends, then I stress that the law should not allow them opportunities to do things for their own enjoyment. What is wrong must be wrong. There must be a clear demarcation between right and wrong. We must first lay a strong foundation in our task of nation building. Every nail should be hammered down securely in its proper place. So now and then we must keep an eye on our law and adjust it to meet any possible situation. It does not mean that an increase of a $50 fine to a $500 fine is the imposition of a very heavy penalty. The fine is increased ten times. This ratio indicates that the demand is now tenfold for more perfect laws.

In view of what I have said, I give my full support to this Bill.

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of this amendment Bill is to increase the power of the Subordinate Courts to punish offenders for contempt committed in the face of the court. Section 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which this Bill now seeks to amend, confers special powers on the Courts, other than the High Court, to deal summarily with five kinds of contempt under the Penal Code. These five kinds of contempt have been briefly referred to by my colleague, the Member for Bukit Panjang, and I need not go into them.

However, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to section 228 of the Penal Code which provides for the punishment of intentional insults to a public servant sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding. If the Minister's intention is to prevent a recurrence of what took place in one of our Courts in June this year, section 228 of the Penal Code may have to be looked into and, if necessary, amended. What happened in the Ninth Magistrate's Court in June this year was, as I gather from the Press, that the accused persons deliberately insulted the Magistrate by turning their backs towards him when he entered the court room to start the proceedings. If that was what happened, the present wording of section 228 may give rise to legal arguments as to whether such insults were offered while the Magistrate was sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding. The words of section 228 of the Penal Code are:

`Whoever intentionally offers any insult or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand dollars, or with both.'

The operative words are "is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding". Does the very entrance of a Magistrate into the court house constitute a sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding? These are the thoughts I have on this amendment Bill - thoughts that came to my mind in what little time I had during the tea-break to do research. I am glad that my colleague, the Member for Bukit Panjang, agrees with me and appears to have the same thoughts. I commend these thoughts to the Minister for his consideration.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that the purpose of this amendment is to prevent a recurrence of the disgraceful spectacle that took place in our lower Court in June this year. This is a necessary measure and I am sure that nobody either inside or outside this House will disagree with it. Consequently, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment Bill.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there is a consensus of opinion among Members of this House that we should bring about sufficient deterrent to prevent any contempt of the judiciary. In fact, some Members have gone so far as to say that the penalties should be increased.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that not only Members of this House feel that we should prevent any contempt or ridicule of the judiciary, but also members of the public do feel the same about it, because, as has been said by the Member for Bukit Panjang, this attempt to ridicule the court is not the result of a desire to commit a criminal offence but is purely for political motives. At this stage when all of us are concentrating our energies on our work and the public has accepted the fact that we must, in order to survive, discipline ourselves, it therefore goes against public sentiment to allow a small anti-national group to bring ridicule into our courts of law.

Coming to the technical points referred to by the Member for Bukit Pan jang and the Member for Choa Chu Kang, I can only say that, as a layman, I will give this amendment a trial. I feel I can depend on the wisdom of the magistrates in the subordinate courts to apply the law and that it would not be difficult -- here again, I will not get into a legal argument with the Member for Choa Chu Kang - for a magistrate to call the court to order, if that is the right term, as soon as he comes in. But if these people still insist on behaving as before, the court could be said to be sitting in proceeding when he enters the court, and the law will be put into effect.

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 Lim Kim San].

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