CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [11th June, 1969], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

2.31 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, the business of government is to ensure that the rule of law must be seen to prevail, and not thwarted. This means that the administration of justice is carried out fairly and justly, and that the law does take its course. When making changes to existing practice, we have to ask ourselves whether the change we are introducing will be for the better.

Having spent a decade in the practice of the law, with some experience in the criminal courts, and another decade in government having to provide for the machinery of justice, the police and their investigations, public prosecutors and the courts, I have little doubt that this is a change which in our circumstances will ensure that justice is the more likely to be done, and seen to be done.

If three High Court Judges cannot decide on questions of fact better than seven random jurymen, then grievous harm is being done every day. Single Judges and single Magistrates have been, and are deciding questions of fact, both in civil and criminal cases. Every day single Judges and single Magistrates make their decisions after findings on questions of fact on the evidence of witnesses under examination-in-chief and cross examination. Sometimes they intervene to pose questions. Sometimes documents and exhibits are brought before them. I have little doubt that they are the more likely to arrive at the truth as against a jury of laymen.

The jury system may work in Singapore, if our jurors do not feel overwhelmed with the responsibility of having to find a man guilty, when they know that this means a death sentence. It also requires Judges who have complete command of their courts, and are sufficiently subtle and skilful to get juries to arrive at the right verdict through a judicious choice of words which cannot be attacked on appeal.

Even in England, the present Lord Chief Justice has had occasion in recent years to make a number of caustic comments on the jury system. One can always fall back on Blackstone in the eighteenth century, and several English Judges of the present century to proclaim the virtues of the Anglo-Saxon method of jury trial. But, even in England from the requirement of unanimous verdict for a conviction, it is now only necessary to get a majority.

Also not so long ago in England juries were called upon to decide questions of fact even in civil cases, like actions for libel. Now they have been abolished. The administration of justice has to be kept apace and abreast with the times. And the reputation of the jury for divine discernment is now much tarnished.

We have seen in Singapore several miscarriages of justice in the past few years. In one trial for murder recently, a trial that should have taken five days dragged on for over 30 days as Judge and prosecutor leant over backwards to ensure the appearance of justice being manifestly done. In my view, it was overdone. Every visiting psychiatrist was called to give evidence, ending with the majority of jurymen being so impressed or confused that a majority of the jury reduced the charge of murder to a conviction for culpable homicide. The time has come to put this right.

Western Europe is not uncivilised. They too have the rule of law, although more Roman law than Anglo-Saxon law. The French, Germans, Italians, and Dutch do not have juries for civil or criminal trials. No jurist or student of jurisprudence has been reckless enough to say that justice is not being done in these countries.

The question some lawyers unconsciously frame is: Before whom does an accused person, who can pay for a good advocate, stand a more sporting chance of being acquitted, three High Court Judges or a jury of seven? I suggest that as legislators concerned with the administration of justice, we are not interested in this question. The question that we in this House must ask is: Are three Judges more likely to do justice than seven men chosen at random to serve on a jury?

I think we know the answer to this. I support the Second Reading of this Bill.

2.36 p.m.

Mr N. Govindasamy (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday we heard the Minister for Law and National Development and my colleagues the Member for Bukit Panjang and the Member for Serangoon Gardens expressing their views as well as their concern about certain portions of the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill. Today we had the opportunity of listening to the Prime Minister himself. All these four Members are from the legal profession and I have no doubt that they are fully conversant with and convinced of what they have expressed in this House. They have quoted authoritative opinions in support of their views. We are also aware that several members of the legal profession in Singapore and the Bar Committee have raised, to quote the Minister for Law, "vociferous objections" to the Bill. Sir, may I express some of the misgivings I have as a layman who has no connection whatsoever with the legal profession.

Sir, not too long ago, a Member of Parliament (a colourful personality who is no more with us) in a friendly neighbouring country when referring to another Member of Parliament's interpretation of some law, pointedly stated that just as a person who prescribes medicine without medical qualifications is termed a "quack", similarly, a man without legal training who presumes to analyse legal points is termed a "lawyer burok". At the risk of being disparaged in a similar manner, I feel it is my duty to express the genuine misgivings that the ordinary people may have in regard to this Bill.

Sir, the Minister, while outlining the need for the introduction of the Bill, has mentioned that our experiences in the recent past have shown the unreliability of the system of trial by jury where persons who should have been convicted had instead been acquitted. Sir, a pertinent question is, is it solely because this aspect of administration of justice has been left in the hands of seven laymen? Or can it not be, as the Prime Minister once suggested when advocating more equitable salaries for our legal officers in the Government service, that a number of criminals are roaming the streets because of the unrealistic salaries for legal officers which have been responsible for effecting a brain drain from Government service into private practice, leaving, as it were, the Attorney-General's Chambers with the second best? Even though the position may have shown improvement recently, the few good legal officers in the legal service are not able to cope with the number of criminal cases on their hands. It stands to reason that a Deputy Public Prosecutor who has to handle several cases at one and the same time cannot devote the same amount of time and attention as opposing counsel may be able to do in a particular case.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when speaking on this Bill, we must not forget that in many countries the trend of public opinion is against capital punishment and this Bill is only applicable to cases in respect of capital offences. The effect of this Bill is tantamount to the facilitation of capital punishment in Singapore. The point I wish to make is that just as there are authorities and learned opinions which have been cited in this House by the proponents of the Bill in favour of abolition of trial by jury, there are equally authoritative and learned opinions to the effect that capital punishment is not a solution to the problem of criminal and anti-social behaviour.

Sir, let me now refer to the practical difficulties that we may have to face if this Bill becomes law. We have known in practice in all criminal cases where the punishment of death is authorised by law, that the trial may spread over a number of days and that this Bill, when it becomes law, will have the effect of causing not one but three Judges to be tied up during the course of the trial. Knowing that there is a shortage of High Court Judges at this juncture, it would appear that Singapore can ill afford the luxury of having three Judges to be fully occupied with one trial. Even if we increase the number of Judges, I fear that the Bill will bring about a long back-log of court cases and consequently justice could not be meted out as expeditiously as it should be.

Let me now refer to clause 3 of the Bill which seeks to amend Chapter 21, section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subsection (3) of the proposed section 178 reads as follows:

'If the three Judges of the High Court are unable to arrive at a decision either unanimously or by majority, the court may acquit the accused or discharge him, such discharge not amounting to an acquittal; in either case the accused may be tried before another court consisting of three Judges of the High Court other than those who had tried him previously.'

Sir, if three learned Judges cannot arrive at a decision, then I suggest that some doubts have been raised and I feel the case deserves an acquittal, and not another trial before another court, consisting of three Judges of the High Court other than those who had tried him previously. Sir, what happens if the second court is also unable to arrive at a decision either unanimously or by majority? I feel that an important accepted principle is being ignored, namely, that no person should be placed in peril of his life twice. I would have thought that the replacement of a jury of seven laymen by a panel of three Judges who represent the top of the legal profession would have further obviated the necessity of a second trial.

Sir, it is gratifying to know that the Bill is going to a Select Committee and I have no doubt that the Committee, as the Minister has given the assurance, will give every consideration to the constructive suggestions and objections raised by any interested party.

2.46 p.m.

The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is significant that out of the 58 Members of Parliament in this House, only five Members spoke on this Bill, and of these five, four are lawyers. The interest shown in this House in the Bill reflects the interest shown outside the House. The rumblings and grumbling heard outside this House are confined mainly to some members of the legal profession who, as I said yesterday, practise mostly in the criminal courts. We have hardly heard a groan or even a squeak against this Bill from the man in the street.

Sir, when lawyers get together and protest and begin to shout, "The jury is the lamp of freedom. What is this Government doing? Ah, they are taking the jury away;" some people begin to sit up, some prick up their ears and listen, and even some students begin to get restless. Fortunately, Sir, not many people outside this House have even shown the slightest interest in retaining the jury system. Let us examine more closely this catchy phrase "the jury is the lamp of freedom". What is this freedom? Whose freedom is it? Is it the freedom to kill, or kidnap and hold to ransom and sometimes kill in the process? Is it the freedom to carry firearms with impunity? Or is it the freedom of lawyers, whilst defending an accused person on a capital charge, to address and sway a jury? As you well know, Sir, no such freedom exists. It is not even a right. The fundamental rights of liberty, like the liberty of a person, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, are enshrined in our Constitution.

Members will know that in order to make this Bill law, there is no need to amend the Constitution. So to speak of the jury as the lamp of freedom is, with the greatest respect, Sir, in the context of our society, pure and utter balderdash. Trial by jury is, therefore, a mere privilege -- a privilege that the law has up to now accorded accused persons (who if convicted are liable to be sentenced to death) to be tried by a jury; a privilege the law has accorded lawyers defending such accused persons to address and perhaps sway a jury. The time has come for this privilege to be taken away.

Perhaps I should explain for the benefit of some Members of this House that in our courts today, two types of cases are heard - civil and criminal cases. Civil cases in Singapore have never at any time been heard by a jury. Today, as far as criminal cases are concerned, it is only in cases in the High Court where accused persons are charged with offences that may lead, on conviction, to the imposition of capital punishment, that juries are required. On the average, out of the thousands of cases heard every year in the High Court and the subordinate courts, only about one dozen cases are cases which are tried with a Judge and a jury. This Bill, when enforced, will result in the end of jury trials for these types of cases. In place of the jury, there will be three Judges.

What is the main objection to a trial by three Judges? I think it is pretty obvious that three Judges can decide questions of law and even questions of fact better than seven laymen. It has been faintly suggested that the Government can, and the Government may, influence the Judges. Sir, does any reasonable person believe that this Government, whatever its defects and whatever its shortcomings, would stoop so low as to influence our Judges by pressuring them into convicting alleged murderers or kidnappers? I need not assure the House that we have far better things to do.

May I also remind the House of Article 125 of the Constitution which provides for the protection of Judges. This is Article 125 of the Federal Constitution which was retained by us when we passed the independence Act in December, 1965. Sir, this Article is being re-enacted in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill now before the House. I refer to clause 2 of this Bill which seeks to enact an Article 52F Clause (3) of this new Article reads:

'If the Prime Minister, or the Chief Justice after consulting the Prime Minister, represents to the President that a Judge of the Supreme Court ought to be removed on the ground of misbehaviour or of inability, from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause, to properly discharge the functions of his office, the President shall appoint a tribunal in accordance with clause (4) of this Article and shall refer that representation to it, and may on the recommendation of the tribunal remove the Judge from office.'

Clause (4) of this new Article goes on to say:

'The tribunal shall consist of not less than five persons who hold or have held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court in Singapore, or, if it appears to the President expedient to make such an appointment, persons who hold or have held equivalent office in any part of the Commonwealth, and the tribunal shall be presided over by the member first in the following order, namely, the Chief Justices...'

Sir, I am merely bringing the attention of Members to this clause to show that the Judges, once appointed, are firmly seated in their office and practically irremovable.

In conclusion, I will deal briefly with the suggestion of the Member for Bukit Panjang, which was also touched upon by the Member for Telok Blangah, that the proposed subsection (3) of the new section 178 should be deleted. I informed the House yesterday that it is the intention of Government to send this Bill to Select Committee where representations may be made in writing and representors heard in person if they so desire. When the Bill is taken clause by clause in Committee, every consideration will be given to the Members' suggestion and to any other representations that we may receive. Indeed, Sir, now that only members of one Party have been elected to represent the people of Singapore, representations from the public to Select Committee on this and on any Bill are most welcome.

Sir, can I also just touch upon one more point which was raised by the Member for Telok Blangah who was worried about the number of Judges? He said we might require six or more Judges. May I say at this stage that there is no difficulty in appointing more Judges. At the moment, we are short because two Judges, Mr Justice Buttrose and Mr Justice Ambrose, left recently and no one has been appointed since. I do not appoint Judges but I can assure the House that the matter is well being looked after and more Judges will be appointed very soon.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Resolved,

"That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection." [Mr Barker].