CIVIL LAW (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.14 p.m.

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

The main purpose of this Bill is to amend section 5 of the Civil Law Act so as to clarify the scope of application of the section and to eliminate certain unintended and undesirable effects and doubts arising from the existing provision. Section 5 of the Civil Law Act is well known to lawyers as it provides for the general reception in Singapore of English mercantile law. It is a provision which is of vital importance to our business community. Yet it is one of the most difficult and complicated provisions in our statute book to construe. In spite of a number of judicial decisions, including two Privy Council cases, there is considerable uncertainty as to the precise scope of application of the section. This is not surprising as even the two Privy Council cases were incompatible with each other. Because of the uncertainty as to the precise scope of application of section 5, it has become difficult at times to say whether a particular piece of English legislation is or is not applicable to Singapore.

While this might not have been of such great consequence in the past, it is increasingly becoming a serious problem, especially after the entry of Britain into the European Economic Community in 1973. There is and will be an increasing tendency as a result of such entry to harmonise English commercial law with European Common Market law on like subjects. Even on the domestic plane, the tempo of legislative activity in the United Kingdom in the field of commercial law has greatly accelerated in recent years. To give just one example, a great deal of complicated legislation has been enacted in the field of consumer law in the UK in the past few years. Some of the legislative changes in the UK may not be quite appropriate to the needs and circumstances of Singapore; but under section 5, as it stands, we may find ourselves automatically bound by these legislative changes in the UK.

There is, therefore, a definite and urgent need to re-examine section 5 closely not only with a view to reducing its uncertainty and obscurity but also to ensure that Singapore will not be automatically bound by legislative changes in the UK where these changes are not suitable to our needs and circumstances. Accordingly, a Working Committee of experts chaired by the Attorney-General studied and gave careful consideration to the problems arising from section 5. The Bill is the result of the recommendation of that Committee.

The Bill amends section 5 in the following respects:

(1) It makes clear that the reception under section 5 is only confined to English mercantile law and not extended, as was suggested in one Privy Council case, to English law as a whole.

(2) It ensures that no law enacted or made in the UK which purports to give effect to a treaty or international agreement to which Singapore is not a party will be applicable here. Under the existing section, UK legislation giving effect to international treaties to which Singapore is not a party may conceivably be applicable here; this is clearly an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

(3) Any UK law regulating the exercise of any business or activity by providing for registration, licensing or any other method of control or by imposition of penalties will be specifically excluded from application here.

(4) No provision contained in a UK Act of Parliament will be imported here if there is a corresponding written law in force in Singapore, i.e. a written law which serves the same or similar purpose or purposes as the UK Act.

(5) Express provision is inserted to make it clear that the UK law which is to be held applicable in Singapore may be qualified by local circumstances. All these exceptions and qualifications are desirable to clarify the scope of section 5 and to ensure that it does not have any unintended or adverse effects here.

I can assure hon. Members of this House that although the Bill is a short one its drafting has been far from easy. The Bill preserves the close connection between our commercial law and English commercial law. At the same time, it seeks to provide greater clarity and guidance in the interpretation of section 5 of the Civil Law Act and to ensure that the reception of English commercial law will be subject to certain limitations which are necessary and desirable. It does not, of course, attempt to achieve the impossible, i.e. to eliminate all problems of interpretation of the section.

The Bill also seeks to repeal section 6 of the Civil Law Act which relates to the requirement that a contract for the sale of goods of the value of $100 or upwards must be evidenced in writing to be enforceable. This provision is outmoded and has no practical value today. The sum of $100 is quite insignificant today, and many contracts for the sale of goods exceeding this sum are daily entered into orally. There is no justification for rendering such contracts unenforceable merely because they are not evidenced in writing. In the UK this evidentiary requirement was done away with as long ago as 1954.

This Bill may not excite great public interest because of its technical nature, as you can see, Mr Speaker, Sir. Nevertheless, it should prove to be a very useful measure for lawyers and businessmen. It is the first of a series of measures which we hope to introduce to make our commercial law more easily ascertainable and less dependent on legislative changes taking place in the UK.

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.

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.