ROAD VEHICLES (SPECIAL POWERS)(AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 6.15 pm

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

Vehicles are used by bookmakers and their agents as a means of transport in their illegal activities. Telephones installed in vehicles have also been used to place bets and to relay race results. It is therefore proposed to amend the Road Vehicles (Special Powers) Act to provide for the forfeiture of vehicles used for illegal gambling activities.

Clause 2 of the Bill provides for some of the offences under the Betting Act and the Common Gaming Houses Act such as bookmaking, running a common gaming house, a common betting house, or running an illegal public lottery, to be included in the Schedule to this Act. If any vehicle is found to have been used in or for unlawful gambling, on application by the Attorney-General, a magistrate shall order that the vehicle be forfeited whether or not any person has been convicted of any offence under the gambling laws.

The opportunity is also taken to update paragraph 1(c) of the Schedule. The Dangerous Drugs Ordinance has been repealed and replaced by the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1973. Sections 5 and 6(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act are the corresponding provisions of Sections 4(2), 6, 9 and 12 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, again my concern is with the possibility of people losing their vehicles through no fault of their own, that is, when they themselves have not been shown to be guilty of the offence for which the vehicle is made seizable. The Member for Potong Pasir pointed out instances of owners of properties which are let out and where the tenant indulges in illegal gambling activities, and the owner is then taken to task. This, of course, applies with much more force in the case of vehicles. I understand the Minister to say that the Bill provides that, on the application of the Attorney-General, the court shall make the order. Well, is the owner going to be given an opportunity to make representations? And will the law provide that where the owner is shown to be completely innocent in the commission of the offence, will his vehicle be returned to him?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with the amendment of the Road Vehicles (Special Powers)(Amendment) Bill, all loopholes, it would appear, would have been covered with these enhanced penalties. Probably, after all these enactments have gone through, after a period of time illegal gambling would probably be wiped out in Singapore. But, of course, there is the possibility of some of our gamblers going over to Johor to operate from there. But in Singapore it would appear that only legal gambling can exist. At the moment, anyone wanting to go and make a bet, would probably still have a pinch of conscience about it, knowing that gambling is wrong. They know it inside them that it is wrong. But without illegal gambling and with the introduction of computerized terminals, people can conveniently place or punch in 4-digit bets. Perhaps these terminals will be located at strategic points, probably at places in supermarkets where they are about to leave the market. Now, we know that in marketing, there is such thing as impulse buying, so that cigarettes and perhaps other items are placed strategically at the point where monies are paid. Mothers going along with children readily will be punching in, gambling right in front of their children. We will have a new set of moral values.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. What has this got to do with the Road Vehicles (Special Powers) Bill when we discuss the general principles under the Betting Bill and the Common Gaming Houses Bill?

Mr Chiam See Tong: In fact, I have got the Minister to say that he probably would like to take all three Bills together. They are all related. This is in point because they are related.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, can you confine yourself to debate on this Road Vehicles Bill?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think we are in point. What are debating is related to gambling. I think this is the end Bill which -

Mr Deputy Speaker: If it is on gambling, you should have debated on the earlier Bill.

Mr Chiam See Tong: May I just complete and say this? With this amendment, I would say that there will be a degeneration of our moral values.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir has not come out clearly with his arguments. Does he want strong action to be taken against illegal mini-turf clubs and all the nefarious activities that I mentioned? Is he for? Or is he against? He seems to waffle. He was silent on the Common Gaming Houses Bill and all of a sudden realized he had better speak. Perhaps I should let him know that, in Potong Pasir, more than 60 complaints and reports have come from his residents. What is his answer to his residents?

Mr Chiam See Tong: For the record, I am against gambling, of course.

Prof. Jayakumar: Let the Member come out clearly with his arguments. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the other point mentioned by the Member for Anson, let me assure hon. Members that although section 4(1) of the Road Vehicles (Special Powers) Act provides for forfeiture of road vehicles, there are safeguards in the law which prevent arbitrary exercise of the power. For example, first, the court must be satisfied that the vehicle has been used in the commission of a scheduled offence, or that the scheduled offence has been committed in respect of any article or any person found in such vehicle. If the court is not satisfied with these matters, no order for forfeiture can be made. Secondly, although the court may be satisfied that the vehicle has been used in the commission of a scheduled offence, or that the scheduled offence has been committed in respect of any article, or any person found in such vehicle, it cannot independently make an order for forfeiture of the vehicle. Order for the forfeiture can only be made by the court if the Attorney-General has first made a written application for the order. In this regard, the Attorney-General will consider available evidence and other relevant matters (in reply to a point made by the Member for Anson), for example, in the case of a stolen vehicle, where the owner of the vehicle has knowledge of the commission of the scheduled offences, and so on. These matters and the matter mentioned by the Member for Anson will be given careful consideration before an application for forfeiture is made.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. I am sorry it is taking up the time of this House. But again, I am afraid, the Minister has not completely understood the purport of my objection. As he points out, the court has powers to seize the vehicle if it has been used in the commission of an offence. Then he points out that the other provisions are left to the Attorney-General to decide. The court has no discretion if the Attorney-General makes the application and the court finds that the vehicle has been used in the commission of the offence. My question to him was: should the court not be allowed to decide whether the owner was privy to the offence, and not just left to the Attorney-General?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have not changed the approach of the law here. What we have done is to include certain offences of the Common Gaming Houses Act and the Betting Act in the scope of the Schedule. And if one looks at the Schedule, it already includes some of the offences of the Common Gaming Houses Act. The approach of the law has not been changed. The law, in fact, has not been changed except to incorporate. And we have to do this because what will happen and what is happening now is that operators of illegal mini-turf clubs are using and will continue to use with increasing frequency vehicles for their purposes.

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. Jayakumar].

Bill considered in Committee. 6.26 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: The citation year will be altered from "1985" to "1986".

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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