CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, this Bill will make several amendments to our Constitution. The principal amendment will restore the two-thirds majority rule in regard to future amendments to the Constitution. This was the position before December 1965 when the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1965 (No. 8 of 1965) was enacted after the Separation. The amendment was required because of the constitutional changes that took place, firstly, in Singapore when we gained independence through federation with Malaysia, and later when we separated.

Sir, 14 years have gone by since. All consequential amendments that have been necessitated by our constitutional advancement have now been enacted. The Government has therefore decided that the time has come to restore the position before December 1965, so that after this Bill goes through, all future amendments to our Constitution will require a two-thirds majority of the total number of Members of the House. This provision is set out in clause 7.

Clause 3 seeks to amend the Constitution in so far as it will allow the appointment of extra Judges of the Supreme Court who will be known as Judicial Commissioners and will be appointed for limited periods of time and with such limited jurisdiction as may be deemed to be appropriate in order that they may help out in the disposal of cases in the High Court. Similar provisions for the appointment of temporary Judges to deal with any backlog of cases that may arise are commonly found in the laws of many countries of the Commonwealth.

Another change relates to our citizenship laws. As the law now stands, renunciation of citizenship can be made by any citizen. Once this renunciation is registered with the Government, the act of renunciation is complete. Together with this, the citizen not only loses all his citizenship rights, but he is also free from any obligations (for example that of national service) which he may still owe to the State. It is solely for the purpose of dealing with such-minded citizens that clause 6 has been drafted.

Under clause 6(2) the Government may withhold the registration of a declaration under this article:

(a) if the declaration is made during any war in which Singapore is engaged: or

(b) if the declaration is made by a person subject to the Enlistment Act unless he has -

(i) discharged his liability for a full-time service, or

(ii) rendered at least three years of reserve service in lieu of such full-time service; or

(iii) complied with such conditions as may be determined by the Government.

Our Constitution, as I said, was first enacted as the Constitution of the State within a larger federation. Accordingly, in dealing with the qualifications for eligibility for election as Head of State, the Constitution requires that such a person should be born "in Malaya". Now that Singapore is an independent sovereign nation, it would seem incongruous to have a provision stipulating that a person cannot be President of Singapore without his having been born in Malaya. Accordingly, the Bill seeks to amend Article 2 by deleting the words "born in Malaya" therein. As a result, a citizen will qualify to be President notwithstanding where he was born.

Sir, I have spoken about the main amendments. There is another amendment which I have not referred to. It deals with the reprint of the Constitution, and it merely provides the Attorney-General with the necessary powers to print and publish the consolidated reprint of the Constitution.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed. 5.31 p.m.

Mr P. Selvadurai (Kuo Chuan): Mr Speaker, Sir, just a few observations on this Bill. It is to be welcomed that at last the Con- stitution of the Republic of Singapore will be consolidated into one compendious volume. At the present moment, to find out what the Constitution of Singapore is we have to look into the Malaysian Constitution and also at various Acts that were passed by this House from time to time. So it is to be welcomed that at last we are going to have one document that will have within itself the entire provisions of the Constitution.

But more important, Sir, is the provision that is being made now for the appointment of Judicial Commissioners. While it is to be welcomed, I find it a little strange as to why it should be difficult for us to appoint full-time Judges instead of appointing Judicial Commissioners.

Furthermore, Sir, I would also recommend that the time has come for us to develop our judicial system by the appointment of a permanent Court of Appeal instead of having an ad hoc Court of Appeal, so that our Judges would have more time to develop the law instead of being harassed by having to listen to cases at first instance. In this Court of Appeal, our Senior Judges could be appointed on a permanent basis and the new Judges appointed can hear most of the cases at first instance.

Apart from that, Sir, I welcome this Bill.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Kuo Chuan asks why it is necessary to appoint Judicial Commissioners when we can appoint more Judges of the High Court. The answer is this. As in England where Judicial Commissioners are appointed just to hear divorce cases, a situation might arise in Singapore where we have so many claims with regard to personal injuries or deaths caused by accidents on the road - we have a spate of cases - and in order to help the High Court get rid of this backlog of cases, a Judicial Commissioner is appointed just to deal with accident cases.

As for the permanent Court of Appeal, this is a matter which we will give consideration to. But I must remind the Member again that the appointment of Judges is a matter for the Prime Minister to consider after hearing the recommendations of the Chief Justice.

As for the High Court itself the Government does not interfere with the independence of the Judiciary.

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 E W Barker].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.