HIJACKING AND PROTECTION OF AIRCRAFT BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.41 p.m.

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

In recent years, the need for aviation security measures to protect life and property in air commerce has become obvious. The growing number of incidents of aerial hijacking and sabotage of aircraft on the ground and air navigation facilities make it urgent. The early cases of hijacking were usually carried out by persons seeking to reach a destination which would otherwise have been inaccessible to them. However, the nature and character of aerial hijacking and sabotage have developed from those crude and amateurish affairs to sophisticated and well-organised operations in which aircraft, passengers and crew are held as hostages for specific demands.

To meet this threat the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) signed and concluded a number of multilateral conventions. The first convention was the Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts committed on board aircraft signed in 1963. This Convention was ratified by Singapore on 19th October, 1971, by the enactment of the Tokyo Convention Act, 1971. The main objective of this Convention is to ensure that at least one State would have criminal jurisdiction over offences committed on board a civil aircraft in flight.

The Tokyo Convention has been supplemented by a further multilateral convention signed at The Hague on 16th December, 1970. This is The Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft which came into force on 14th October, 1971. Singapore signed this Convention on 8th September, 1971. The purpose of this Convention is to provide a legal framework which will ensure that hijackers do not go unpunished. The Convention makes the act of hijacking an offence punishable by severe penalties to be imposed by Contracting States. It also obliges each Contracting State to take measures necessary for establishing its jurisdiction over the offence committed. It does not bind the State to extradite the offender except to another Contracting State with which it has signed an extradition treaty. The Convention, however, provides that the State which does not extradite the offender shall be obliged to prosecute him in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under its laws.

Aerial hijacking is not the only danger which threatens the safety of civil aviation today. Attacks on aircraft on the ground and other acts of sabotage against air navigational facilities are also matters which undermine the confidence of the people of the world in the safety of civil aviation. To deter the commission of such acts, ICAO concluded the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. This Convention was concluded and signed on 23rd September, 1971, and came into force on 26th January, 1973. Singapore signed this Convention on 21st November, 1972. The Convention deals primarily with acts of sabotage, armed attacks and other forms of violence against international civil aviation and its facilities. Apart from enlarging the scope of offences, this Convention is similar to The Hague Convention.

Although Singapore is a party to The Hague and Montreal Conventions it has yet to ratify them. Both Conventions have gained wide acceptance in the world. As at November, 1977, a total of 79 countries were parties to The Hague Convention and 75 countries were parties to the Montreal Convention. Among ASEAN countries, the Philippines and Indonesia have ratified and acceded to both Conventions.

Singapore should now ratify the Conventions. The Tokyo Convention, to which Singapore is a party, is not designed as a deterrent against hijacking. There is no statute law in Singapore which makes aircraft hijacking an offence in itself. To enable the provisions of The Hague and Montreal Conventions to be implemented, this Bill will have to be enacted so that we have the laws in hand to discharge the obligations under the Conventions when they are ratified.

Clause 3 of the Bill provides that the offence of hijacking is committed by any person who, on board an aircraft in flight, unlawfully seizes or exercises control of the aircraft. The offence is committed irrespective of the nationality of the hijacker, the State of registration of the aircraft or the place of the hijacking, unless the aircraft is used in military, customs or police service.

Clause 4 provides that any act of violence against the passengers or crew of any aircraft in flight done by any person in connection with the offence of hijacking committed or attempted by him shall be deemed to have been committed in Singapore, regardless of where the act was committed. In other words, if a person in committing hijacking were to commit murder of a member of the crew or passenger or certain specified offences, under the Bill, our courts will have jurisdiction to try and sentence him in accordance with our law as if the act was committed in Singapore.

Clauses 5 and 6 make it an offence to destroy or damage an aircraft in flight or to commit an act of violence on board such an aircraft which would endanger its safety; or to destroy, damage or interfere with air navigation installations. Clause 7 makes it an offence for any person in Singapore to abet the commission of the offences defined by Clauses 5 and 6.

Clause 8 provides that hijacking and other offences described in the Bill shall carry the penalty of imprisonment for life. Clause 9 provides that the consent of the Public Prosecutor is required before proceedings under the Bill are instituted. Pending such consent an offender may be arrested and charged in court.

Clause 10 seeks to make hijacking and other offences by virtue of the Bill extraditable offences. It also provides that where there is no extradition treaty between Singapore and a State which is a party to either The Hague or Montreal Convention, a Gazette Notification may be made under Section 4 of the Extradition Act applying that Act to such State as though the Convention constitutes an extradition treaty between Singapore and that State.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed. 3.50 p.m.

Dr Ang Kok Peng (Buona Vista): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill tabled by the Minister for Home Affairs and Education,

In recent years the unlawful seizure of aircraft, commonly referred to as hijacking, has occurred on many an occasion, sometimes with loss of lives. Only last year an aircraft of a foreign country in domestic flight was hijacked and flown to Singapore.

Hijacking an aircraft endangers the safety of persons and property and undermines the confidence of the people in the safety of civil aviation. It is therefore necessary that there are appropriate measures to deal with criminal offences of this nature. Both The Hague and Montreal Conventions are designed to suppress such unlawful acts by providing the procedural instrument for hijackers to be dealt with and punished by the relevant Contracting States.

It is timely that we now introduce the necessary legislation to deal adequately and speedily with such unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation committed in the territory under our jurisdiction or on board an aircraft registered in our country.

In going through the Bill, I find the penalty provided under clause 8 of the Bill not consistent with the penalty provided in our other Bills where a lighter offence, e.g. the illegal possession of a certain quantity of hallucinating drugs, is punishable with the capital sentence.

Clause 3 of Article 4 of The Hague Convention and clause 3 of Article 5 of the Montreal Convention make provision for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction in accordance with the national law of each Contracting State. I therefore see no reason for this inconsistency.

I do, however, recognise that a treaty of extradition between States may contain a provision for a State to exercise its discretion not to extradite an alleged offender. For such a case, you will note that Article 7 of The Hague Convention and a similarly numbered Article of the Montreal Convention make it mandatory for that Contracting State to deal with the offence of hijacking as an offence of a serious nature under the law of that State which is likely to carry the same penalty as clause 8 of the Bill before the House. Would the Minister then agree that it is therefore not to our disadvantage to revise clause 8 of the Bill to make the penalty consistent with the graveness of the offence according to our law. 3.53 p.m.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, in reply to the Member for Buona Vista, may I say that there is no inconsistency with the Convention and our enactment of clause 8. Although clause 8 provides that the offence of hijacking carries the penalty of imprisonment for life, it does not mean that if a hijacker were to commit murder in the course of hijacking, he cannot be tried and punished in our courts and, if found guilty, be convicted and sentenced to death. That, Sir, as I said in my speech just now, is provided under clause 4 of the Bill. As I said, clause 4 provides that:

'Any act of violence against the passengers or crew of any aircraft in flight done by any person in connection with the offence of hijacking committed or attempted by him on board such aircraft shall be deemed to have been committed in Singapore.....' regardless of where the act was committed. In other words, under clause 4, if a hijacker in the course of hijacking, commits murder or fires a gun with intent to kill or injure, this constitutes an offence that can be tried in our courts and, if convicted, he can be sentenced to death. So there is no inconsistency as is thought by the Member for Buona Vista.

Dr Ang Kok Peng: Sir, may I, as a matter of interest, seek clarification on one point? How many of those countries that have ratified both The Hague and Montreal Conventions have invoked them in dealing with hijackers?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, I am not able to say how many countries have invoked these Conventions in dealing with hijackers, as such information is not readily available. This is because the manner of invoking the provisions of these Conventions differs in different countries. In some countries, the ratification itself is binding because these countries have special articles in the law which allow them to take steps against hijackers without the need to pass special legislation. This is the case with the United States and France. On the other hand, in countries like the United Kingdom, special laws have to be passed for the practical application of The Hague and Montreal Conventions against hijackers. However, from the information I have available, eight countries which have ratified both The Hague and Montreal Conventions and two countries which have ratified only the Montreal Convention have tried and punished hijackers. Punishment meted out by the courts of these countries varies tom country to country, ranging from four years' imprisonment to the death sentence.

Sir, may I just quote a few examples of what happened in these countries? On 1st March, 1975, Kurdish sympathisers hijacked an Iraqi Airways plane and the plane landed in Teheran, Iran. The hijackers were apprehended and they were executed by Iranian authorities on 7th April, 1975. Iran had ratified The Hague and Montreal Conventions in January 1972 and August 1976 respectively.

In another case, on 10th September, 1976, four Croation exiles and one United States' national hijacked a TWA aircraft from New York. They flew to Paris and surrendered there. The French authorities returned these five persons to the U.S. authorities and these persons were convicted on several charges of air piracy and conspiracy in the United States. Two of them were sentenced to life imprisonment and the other three received 30 years' imprisonment each.

In another example, on 26th May, 1977, a Russian hijacked an Aeroflot plane and flew to Sweden. The USSR authorities demanded the extradition of this Russian hijacker. The Swedish authorities refused but tried and sentenced the hijacker to four years' imprisonment in Sweden.

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; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.