ARMS OFFENCES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.15 p.m.

The Minister for Health and Home Affairs (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Over the last decade there has been a steady increase of crimes in Singapore. In 1972, 20,208 seizable offences were committed in the Republic as against 15,752 in 1962. This represented an increase of 4,456 cases, or 22.1 per cent. The average number of seizable offences committed over the last ten years, that is, between 1962 and 1972, was 19,776. However, the number of seizable offences for the years 1970, 197] and 1972 were 19,835, 22,564 and 20,208 respectively. There are no signs that this upward trend has abated for, in the first six months of this year, the number of reported seizable offences was 10,611. If this rate continues, the total number of seizable offences for 1973 should be well over 20,000.

Mr Speaker, Sir, robbery is one of the prevalent offences in the Republic. The number has increased sharply in recent years. In 1968 there were 1,067 cases of robbery. But within a period of three years this figure has doubled for in 1971 there were 2,146 cases and in 1972 there were 1,715 cases of robbery. But what is disturbing is the rapid increase of robbery cases in Singapore in which offensive weapons were used. These are known as armed robberies. In 1969 there were 473 cases of armed robbery out of a total of 1,009 robberies. This works out to 46.9 per cent. In 1970 the number increased to 821 Out of a total of 1,379 robberies. This works out to 59.5 per cent. There were 1,124 cases of armed robbery in 1971 out of a total of 2,146 robberies and in 1972 there were 939 cases of armed robbery out of a total of 1,715 robberies.

The offensive weapons used in these robberies include firearms, knives, bearing scrapers or any sharp instruments. This clearly indicates that crimes of violence have become wide-spread in Singapore. What is even more alarming is that the number of robberies in which firearms have been used has also increased sharply. In 1971 there were 93 robberies in which firearms were used, and in 1972 firearms were used in 79 robberies. However, in the first half of 1973 alone there were 127 robberies where firearms were used. This is a staggering increase over last year's figure. This works out to about an average of 21 robberies a month, involving firearms. It has therefore become vital and urgent that something drastic should be done to curb this widespread use of firearms if peace and good order in our Republic is to be maintained. It is well known that those who use firearms in the commission of criminal offences when resisted do not hesitate to open fire to maim or to kill their victims. They have even less hesitation to open fire at the police when they are confronted. Some even shoot to kill in cold blood. Hon. Members may recall the incident in the middle of this year of the detective police constable who intervened in a dispute between a bus driver and a motorist at Katong. The motorist turned out to be one of the top 10 criminals in the wanted list. He pulled out his gun and in cold blood shot twice at the detective constable. He then relieved him of his service revolver and calmly walked away. This year the Police Force lost two of its best officers, shot dead in two separate shooting incidents. Early this year, the police also uncovered a big-time syndicate for the hire of firearms to thugs for use in the commission of criminal offences.

In the face of this grave threat from this widespread use of firearms in the commission of criminal offences, it was clear that the Government had to find an effective deterrent to this growing menace. It was also clear that the law pertaining to the use of firearms in the commission of offences had to be amended to strengthen its provisions and to enhance punishment so that it could be an effective deterrent. Hence you have before you this Arms Offences Bill.

In fact, to give hon. Members a preview of its deterrent effect, let me give the figures of the number of robberies involving the use of firearms after the Bill was introduced in August this year as compared with the figures previous to its introduction. For the three-month period of September to November 1973, that is, after the Bill was introduced and its provisions publicised, there were only 14 cases of robbery involving firearms. On the other hand, from January to August 1973, which is a period of eight months, there were a total of 155 robberies involving firearms. This sharp decline in the incidence of robberies involving the use of firearms after the Bill was introduced in August was quite dramatic.

Clause 4 of the Arms Offences Bill makes it an offence punishable with death for any person who uses or attempts to use any arms with intent to maim or cause physical injury to the victim. "Arm" is defined to include firearm, air-gun, bomb or grenade, etc. Under the existing Arms Offences Act, which it is proposed to repeal, the court can either punish the offender with death or with imprisonment for life.

Clause 5, which is a new provision, provides the same punishment for an accomplice of a person who, when committing or attempting to commit any offence, uses an arm provided the accomplice was present at the scene of the offence and may reasonably be presumed to have known that the person who had used the arm was carrying it or had it in his possession. This clause provides for joint liability on accomplices without the need to prove common intention on their part to use the arm which would otherwise be necessary if sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code arc to be invoked.

Clause 6 provides as penalties death or imprisonment for life plus caning for any person trafficking in arms. Any person proved to be in unlawful possession of more than two arms shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to be trafficking in arms. This is a new provision. At present persons trafficking in arms are only heavily fined or imprisoned for possession of arms. Such punishment is manifestly inadequate.

Clause 7 seeks to make a person, who consorts with or is found in the company of another person who is unlawfully carrying or is in unlawful possession of any arm, guilty of an offence and liable to the same punishment as the person with whom he was consorting or in whose company he was found, if the circumstances raise a reasonable presumption that he knew that such other person was carrying or had in his possession such arm. This is another new provision. It is similar in nature to clause 5 and provides for joint liability on accomplices.

Clause 8 proposes penalties for exhibiting any imitation arm in a manner likely to put any person in fear of death or hurt when committing or attempting to commit or abetting the commission of any scheduled offence. This new provision is necessary as imitation arms are nowadays so well made that unless they are closely examined, it is quite impossible to distinguish them from the genuine ones. The degree of intimidation on the victim is therefore equally grave.

Clause 9 seeks to make the occupier of any premises in which any arm is found guilty of possession of such arm unless he proves that some other person was in possession of it or that he had no knowledge or reasonable means of knowing that such arm was in the premises and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such arm being kept in his premises. This is also a new provision.

Mr Speaker, Sir, caning is made mandatory in respect of all offences except in cases where the offence is punishable with death.

In conclusion, as I have stated in a speech before, in our system of criminal justice the raison d'etre of it is that criminal elements are detected and apprehended and through a combination of punitive and rehabilitative measures they are returned to society in a condition whereby it is hoped they are more amenable to abiding by the social norms and restraints necessary for the existence of organised society. This work of ensuring justice is performed by three distinct agencies. They are the police, the courts and the prisons. Any inadequacy or weakness on the part of any one of the agencies must necessarily jeopardise the objective of the entire system. As far as the courts are concerned, the sentences that they impose must be adequate so as not only to act as a deterrent to repeat offenders but also to deter others as well. This is particularly important in cases of serious crimes and crimes of violence. In order to ensure this, the relevant laws where necessary must and will be amended.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.28 p.m.

Dr Ong Leong Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. I think the Minister has given us a very detailed but extremely shocking account of the rising crime rate in this country. I personally believe that gangsters, hooligans and thugs who resort to violence and extreme methods in their criminal activities must be tried and punished by sentences no less than that with which they inflict their victims. To them I think the extreme punishment is something which they will probably understand. Anything less than that will not be effective. I am glad of the revelation by the Minister that over the last three months some beneficial results have been noticed. I take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, Sir, to express my support for the Bill and, secondly, to congratulate the police for the excellent work which we read every now and then in the recent past.

I am also disturbed by the fact that to really seek a total eradication of such crimes in Singapore, we must have maximum co-operation from the people. We do know of occasions when policemen have been shot dead at point-blank in the presence of members of the public and yet they do not willingly come forward in spite of announcements in the press. Sir, I think we must at the same time encourage people to come forward in a more public spirited manner and unless and until they give the police this maximum co-operation, whatever Bills we introduce in Parliament will not bring about the desired results.

Sir, I beg to support the Bill.

4.32 p.m.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, firstly, I would like to thank the Member for Kim Seng for his ardent support of the Bill. Secondly, I cannot agree more with the Member when he says that whatever Bills we pass and even whatever action the police take and however efficiently they do their job, the prevention and reduction of the crime rate cannot be achieved until and unless we have maximum co-operation from all members of the public. As far as the Police are concerned, they have been holding "Police Week" yearly to get co-operation from the public. Next year, as some Members are aware, we will be launching a nation-wide campaign called "Keep Singapore Crime Free", and I hope that Members of Parliament, community leaders and members of the public will join in the campaign to rouse the conscience of the public to come out in support of whatever action is taken to suppress crime and criminal acts.

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 Chua Sian Chin].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

4.36 p.m.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 -

Amendment made:

In page 2, line 7, to leave out "traffick" and insert "trafficking". -[Mr Chua Sian Chin].

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 -

Amendment made:

In page 3, line 10, to leave out "also" and insert

"in any event". -[Mr Chua Sian Chin].

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 -

Amendment made:

In page 3, line 12, to leave out "Any" and insert - " Subject to any exception referred to Cap. 103. in Chapter IV of the Penal Code which may be applicable, any". -[Mr Chua Sian Chin].

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 -

Amendment made:

In page 3, line 30, after "shall", to insert ", until the contrary is proved,".-[Mr Chua Sian Chin].

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 to 13 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.