SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

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, the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill now before the House, as its very name suggests, provides a proper basis for the administration of justice in our Courts which should really have been introduced soon after we left Malaysia. Unfortunately, the many and varied Problems which we had to deal with upon leaving Malaysia had forced us to continue with the existing system of administration of justice until the present day. All that the Bill purports to do is to set out logically the consequences that flow from our becoming independent on our own with an independent system of administration of justice separate from the system that was introduced while we were part of Malaysia and which had since continued in use. Such anachronistic references to the Federal Court of Appeal, for example, would be done away with. The Supreme Court now consists of the Court of Appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal and the High Court. The Bill generally does no more than to revert to the position obtaining before we joined Malaysia. The powers of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court are the same as heretofore, before we joined Malaysia and after we left Malaysia. There are some minor amendments to the law which can be regarded as technical and which generally relate to drafting technique. Apart from these minor changes, there is the introduction of a new provision in Part VII which deals with miscellaneous matters. This new section empowers the High Court to declare any person who is habitually and persistently and without any reasonable cause instituting legal proceedings as a vexatious litigant, whereupon such person may be prevented from instituting legal proceedings without first obtaining the leave of the High Court. Such application to the High Court to have a person declared a vexatious litigant can only be made by the Attorney-General.

Needless to say, the Bill would be very welcome by all who practise the law as well as those who administer it. One could say, therefore, that this Bill has been long overdue and would set right on a proper basis the administration of justice in our Courts. No more have the records of appeal for the purposes of conformity with the existing law to be sent up to the Registry of the Federal Court in Kuala Lumpur as it is even now being done. The Court would carry on its proceedings in the same manner but without all the anachronistic carry-over of a system which prevailed when we were a state of the Federation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

Committee on a date to be fixed.