INTERPRETATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 1.57 pm

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

Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Interpretation Act to enable the Courts to have recourse to the use of Ministerial statements made in Parliament when interpreting any statute in order to ascertain the intention of Parliament should the statute be ambiguous or obscure in its purpose or if a literal reading of the statute would lead to an absurdity.

Traditionally, the Courts have not relied on the use of Parliamentary materials in interpretation of statutes. This may come as a surprise to Members of the House. But this is because of a number of reasons based either on constitutional objections or practical difficulties. But these objections can no longer be applicable today when the Courts are faced with a flood of ever increasing legislation of a complexity and variety not encountered before. If the Courts are to make well reasoned decisions, access to such information may well be crucial to its deliberations.

The position with respect to our Singapore Courts appears to be unclear. There are conflicting local cases in relation to the use of explanatory statements attached to the Bills which is one type of Parliamentary material covered by the amendment. Unfortunately, no local cases have ruled directly on the issue of whether the Singapore Courts can resort to the use of Hansard as an aid to statutory interpretation.

In the United Kingdom, the House of Lords there, in a very recent decision known as Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart, made a significant departure from their traditional English practice of not referring to the use of Hansard, by allowing its use for the purpose of resolving an ambiguity or obscurity or avoiding an absurdity if such Parliamentary materials consist of clear statements by a Minister or promoter of the Bill.

Sir, the amendment before the House also seeks to highlight the importance of adopting what is known as a purposive approach in the course of the Courts' interpretation of statutes in order to promote the underlying purpose behind the legislation. That is the main amendment. Apart from that, there are other amendments which seek to clarify the ambit of certain existing provisions in the Act for the avoidance of any doubt.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill. This is not something new. Many progressive judges have already been adopting a purposive approach towards the interpretation of statutes. It is nevertheless welcome. May I make some suggestions? If we are going to allow judges to look at parliamentary material, there are certain things that might helpfully be done in order to ease their burden.

The first point I would like to make is that when a judge looks for a purposive approach, he is looking theoretically for the intention of Parliament. But in reality the intention of Parliament is a chimera. It is a mythical beast. In reality, it is the officials who advise the Minister and the Parliamentary draftsmen who draft the words. Very often, the intention behind the Bill is not clear just from reading the explanatory statement or by perusing the Minister's speech in Parliament. Now that we are going to allow the courts officially to look at these things, may I suggest that perhaps the Minister might like to ask the Parliamentary draftsmen to expand on the explanatory notes in the Bills. Very often, we copy legislation from abroad, sometimes blindly, down to the mistakes. It would help to know the source of the legislation. It would also help to know where changes have been made and why these changes have been made. This kind of explanation in the Bill itself will not create that much extra work, but it would be of great assistance to the judge and to other people who have to interpret statutes to have the material on hand.

My second suggestion is that we rely a lot upon Select Committees for technical Bills, but Select Committees are not necessarily the best way of looking at a technical Bill because of the way that they are structured. Very often again, we copy legislation from abroad. Legislation from abroad may have been preceded by reports done by a committee. For example, just looking at company law, there is the Jenkins Committee, and in insolvency, there is the Cork Committee. It might be useful when we seek to reform the law for greater use to be made of committees of lawyers from the Bar and from the Faculty of Law to prepare reports on proposed legislation so that it is quite clear what we are doing.

I end with one last suggestion. The problem of ambiguity will be greatly alleviated if Parliamentary draftsmen could be directed to write in simple English instead of legalese. Now that we are allowed to look at the purpose, there is no need to cram everything into one sentence without a full-stop. I know the English themselves have not been successful in persuading their Parliamentary draftsmen to simplify their drafting. But it is my fervent hope that we at least can make some contribution to the clarity of the law in this area.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will discuss with the Attorney-General's Chambers which of Mr Walter Woon's suggestions can be adopted. I welcome his offer for the Law Faculty's assistance wherever it can be of help. Indeed, I strongly favour a situation where the Law Faculty lecturers can get involved in collaboration with the Attorney-General's Chambers or the Ministry of Law. I think he knows that I always have encouraged the Law Faculty to collaborate with Attorney-General's Chambers or the Ministry of Law.

Where I disagree with him is when he says that the intention of the Bill is not decided by the Ministers or Cabinet but by the officials. I do not know from which country's experience he has got that idea. But I can tell him that in this Government, in this Cabinet, the decisions and the intentions are made by Cabinet and the Ministers which compose the Cabinet.

As for his other point about explanatory statements, this can be looked into.

As for simplifying the language, draftsmanship is a skill that is not easily acquired and the number of people who have the skill in drafting is limited. We must, of course, look for a wider pool of draftsmen. Of course, the more the better.

I take his point that with this approach to enable the courts to look at parliamentary materials, it becomes important to enunciate the intentions clearly. I think this is not to be done only in the form of explanatory statements, but it must be in the form of Second Reading and Third Reading speeches given in Parliament.

I think I have touched on all his points.

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.