EXTRADITION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.00 p.m.

The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, this Bill seeks to provide for the extradition of fugitives - in other words, the surrender of a fugitive criminal by one state to another in which he is liable to be punished or has been convicted.

It may be of interest to Members if, before moving on to the historical background of the law of extradition that is at present in force in Singapore, I say a few words on the theoretical basis of this law. In theory no state can be called upon to enforce through its tribunals the penal laws of other states, or to try a person for an offence alleged to have been committed beyond its frontiers, if a man commits a crime in China, you do not try him in Singapore, and vice versa. The principles of the independence and sovereignty of each country militate against any such obligation. It has, however, for a long time been recognised by various states that it is not in their interest to afford refuge to criminals from other countries. On the contrary, it is in their interests to return the fugitive criminal for trial and punishment to the state in which the offence was committed or in which the criminal was convicted.

Involving, therefore, as it does the extension of the criminal jurisdiction of one state beyond its own territorial limits into those of another, extradition forms, at the present day, an important and integral part of Public International Law, and is as such, apart from international comity, generally regulated by mutual arrangement or treaty between the various states. Most states in the modern world have extradition laws in force.

With these few remarks, I will now survey the historical background to the existing extradition laws in Singapore.

Our Laws have been derived from two English Statutes - the Extradition Act, 1870, which applies to extradition to foreign countries and the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, which applies to extradition among Commonwealth countries. Both these Statutes have outlived their usefulness. Not only is their continued existence incompatible with the independent and sovereign status of Singapore but also, since they belong to another age, they fail to take into account modern concepts that have now become part of extradition laws in the Commonwealth. For example, they do not provide for a state to refuse extradition of a person who is to be charged with or surrendered for a political offence or for an offence of a political character. Apart from anything else, it is clearly right and proper that Singapore should now be able of its own accord to enter into extradition treaties with foreign states though the treaties already made by the United Kingdom and Malaysia on behalf of Singapore will continue to apply until such time as the Government decides that they should cease so to apply.

With regard to Commonwealth countries there will be no necessity to enter into bilateral treaties, for a common scheme for extradition was agreed to at the Commonwealth Law Ministers Conference held in May 1966, in London at which I represented Singapore. It was agreed at that meeting that this common scheme should apply to all Commonwealth countries and is to be included in the legislation of each country; though this does not preclude modification of the general scheme in certain circumstances. The common scheme, which has been written into this Bill, is significant since it incorporates a revised list of agreed extraditable offences, which will have application not only with regard to extradition as between Singapore and other Commonwealth countries, but also (subject to treaty) as between Singapore and foreign states. For the sake of clarity, I should mention at this point that the distinction that is made in the United Kingdom Acts between the expression "extradition" as applying to surrender of fugitive criminals among independent states and the expression "fugitive offenders" as being restricted to cases of surrender as between different parts of the British Commonwealth, now disappears. Indeed, as the Bill makes clear, the provisions dealing with surrender to foreign states follow much the same pattern as those dealing with surrender to Commonwealth countries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Members will notice that the United Kingdom Acts to which I have referred are repealed by this proposed legislation. It will further be observed that the Malaysian Warrants and Summons (Special Provisions) Act, 1965, is also repealed. The reason for this is that the same ground is covered by Part V of the Bill dealing with extradition to and from Malaysia. This Part provides a simple and expeditious procedure for the return of fugitive offenders from Singapore to Malaysia. It is the sort of simplified procedure as between neighbouring countries that was envisaged in the common scheme. Malaysia in its Commonwealth Fugitive Criminals Act, 1967 (No. 54 of 1967) has included corresponding provisions. These provisions provide for Magistrates to issue or endorse warrants rather than the more complicated "requisition to Minister" procedure laid down for surrender of fugitives to foreign and other Commonwealth countries. They also extend to a wider range of offences than is the case with foreign and other Commonwealth countries.

The Explanatory Statement to the Bill describes in some detail the nature of the various provisions in the Bill and I do not propose to elaborate on them.

In closing, I would, for the information of Members, mention that enabling legislation giving effect to the common scheme has already been enacted in the United Kingdom, Australia and Malaysia - there may well be others.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

6.10 p.m.

Mr Selvadurai: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a very interesting Bill and I must commend it. For the first time in a very long while, we have a Bill which is really well drafted. Over the ages all over the world two principles have contested with each other for final expression. Both are civilised principles. One, of course, is that no state must allow its territory to be used as a haven for common criminals. The second one, especially after the French Revolution, is that no political offender should be extradited. Even to this day the battle between these two principles has not been finally resolved. I am glad to note that we have made adequate provisions in this Bill to safeguard political offenders who come to Singapore and find haven here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are, however, a few provisions which I would like to consider in detail, at least for the purpose of rationalising the faults. We have three clauses - clause 26, clause 37 and clause 45 of the Bill. All these three clauses deal with an order made by a magistrate for committal. If the committed person is not happy with the order of the magistrate, he has got two different types of redress. Clause 37 deals with Malaysia. It lays down that if the committed person is not satisfied with the order of the magistrate he can make an application to the High Court. It is a very simple procedure. Whereas clause 12, dealing with a foreign country, and clause 26, dealing with a Commonwealth country, lay down that he can bring the matter up in the High Court by way of habeas corpus proceedings. I do not see logically why we should maintain this difference in this Bill. If the procedure in clause 37 is the more rational and simple, then, of course, it should apply to the other two clauses as well. Or, on the other hand, if the habeas corpus procedure is a simpler one, then, of course, it should be made to apply to a Malaysian offender as well. It may not be a fundamental point, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I think it will make for clarity and symmetry in the law if this can be rationalised.

Clause 45 gives the Minister the power to vary the Schedules of this Bill and I am very concerned with the First Schedule which lays down the various offences for which an offender can be extradited. What I am concerned with is that in making a variation, we should make sure that a person who is already in Singapore, having committed an offence which is not covered by the Schedule, should not be brought under this purview merely by a change in the Schedule itself. These are the small points which I really want to discuss, Sir.

I would like to make one other point. I notice that in this Bill and in one other Bill, there is an index laid out. I notice that most of the other Bills that have been brought before Parliament from time to time do not have an index at all. Can I make a suggestion, Sir? In future, all Bills should have indexes like this because it makes it simpler for reference.

Mr Tang See Chim and other hon. Members: Hear, hear!

6.16 p.m.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I did say in my opening speech that Part V of the Bill deals with extradition to and from Malaysia and provides a simple and expeditious procedure for the return of fugitive offenders from Singapore to Malaysia. As the Member for Bukit Panjang well knows, we were not very long ago a part of Malaysia. For historical reasons, we are more closely connected with Malaysia than with other countries.

As far as foreign countries are concerned, it is not so easy to come to some extradition treaty. Hence the difference between the procedure for the extradition of fugitives from Singapore to Malaysia and those to and from Commonwealth and foreign countries. The procedure for extradition as between Commonwealth countries was agreed to at the London Law Conference which I mentioned. The procedure for extradition between Singapore and Malaysia has been agreed to between Singapore and Malaysia.

As for the Schedule, the Minister has powers to vary it. But here again the list of offences that are specified as extraditable offences as far as the Commonwealth is concerned, was again agreed to after a long argument at the London Law Conference. It forms part of a common scheme which has been adopted by the Commonwealth countries subject to variations or modifications as each country chooses to adopt. There has been one difficulty, which is this. If you commit the offence of murder in Singapore, you are liable to be sentenced to be hanged. As Members well know, the United Kingdom have got rid of capital punishment perhaps to suit their own local social conditions. Our conditions are different. They want a discretion - a discretion not to return persons who commit murder in Singapore and run to the United Kingdom. They say that it is against their social conscience if these offenders are returned because, on conviction, they are liable to be hanged. Our argument is that the crime is committed here. And surely the punishment to be meted out should be in accordance with our laws, not theirs. I merely raise this matter because, as between country A and country B, there may be modifications to the scheme. Some countries may not choose to return offenders for certain offences. Hence the provision enabling the Minister to vary the Schedule. But I give the hon. Member my assurance that we will not vary the Schedule in respect of crimes that have already been committed in order to fix someone who has done it and is about to run away.

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.