NOTARIES PUBLIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 4.18 pm

The Acting Minister for Labour (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, this is a short Bill which seeks to amend the Notaries Public Act in two respects. First, it amends section 5 of the Act relating to the revocation of appointment of a notary public in cases of misconduct. At present, that section only has application where the notary public has been struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. The Bill amends that section so as to enable the Attorney-General, who is the appointing authority, to also revoke the appointment of a notary public who has become a bankrupt or made an arrangement with his creditors or who has been found to be guilty of professional or other misconduct. The professional or other misconduct for the purposes of revocation must be of such a nature as to render, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, the notary public unfit to practise as such. This amendment is dealt with in clause 4 of the Bill.

Secondly, the Bill inserts a new section 5A to the Act to enable the appointment of a notary public to be revoked in certain other circumstances where no misconduct is involved. These are where the notary public himself requests that his appointment be revoked (e.g. when he is leaving Singapore for good), or where he has ceased to practise as an advocate and solicitor for a continuous period of more than two years. This amendment is contained in clause 5 of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 are purely formal amendments and have no substantive effect.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise really on a point of clarification. The Minister has said that the present position is that the Attorney-General may revoke the appointment if the notary public has been struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors, and then he said that the Bill is designed to extend this power to give him the power to revoke the appointment if the notary public has been found to be guilty of such professional or other misconduct. What I would like to know from the Minister is, who is the person contemplated for finding the advocate and solicitor guilty of such professional or other misconduct? Is the Attorney-General made the arbiter or judge of whether a particular advocate and solicitor is guilty of professional misconduct and therefore empowering him to revoke? Or is it intended that he can only revoke the appointment if the notary public has been found guilty by a disciplinary committee of the Law Society and has been censored by the High Court of three judges but who have not struck him off the roll of advocates and solicitors?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, I am just wondering whether you wish to make a declaration. This is a Bill on your particular profession.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Would you not wish to make a declaration of your interest?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I do not know what that question means. I am not a notary public.

Mr Deputy Speaker: All right.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Minister must know that.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would be reluctant to give an interpretation of the provisions in anticipation of any questions which may come up for interpretation in the court. But if I may respond to the Member's question. I would have thought that it follows that a person who is found guilty of such professional or other misconduct must have been so found by such persons and according to such procedures as are prescribed in law -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Disciplinary committee.

Prof. Jayakumar: Whatever the procedure is as provided for in law. As I read it, the provision does not lead to automatic revocation but gives the discretion to the Attorney-General to decide whether such professional or other misconduct, in his opinion, renders him fit to continue to serve as a notary public.

Mr Jeyaretnam: If the Minister says that he is not quite clear or is doubtful as to how the courts will interpret this, would he say what is the intention of his Ministry? Is it the intention of his Ministry that it should only be after the disciplinary committee has found the advocate and solicitor guilty and a court of three judges has censured him, or does it intend to enlarge that? If it is the former, would the Minister accept an amendment to paragraph (c) of clause 4?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if there is any confusion, it cannot be in my mind, and I never said that the Ministry is not clear or there is a doubt. What I said is that we in Parliament should avoid giving a legal interpretation of a Bill, which interpretational question may arise before the court. I have already said that this Bill does not amend the Legal Profession Act. It amends the Notaries Public Act. I think that should be sufficiently clear.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is not.

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. - (Prof S. Jayakumar).

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