REVISED EDITION OF THE LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Law Revision Commissioners who produced the 1985 Revised Edition of Acts and the 1990 Revised Edition of Subsidiary Legislation have identified two procedural shortcomings in the Revised Edition of the Laws Act which this Bill seeks to remedy. In addition, the Bill introduces a loose-leaf system for the publication of our statutes, an improvement over the current loose-booklet system.

The first shortcoming is that, currently, the Act does not provide for Commissioners to be appointed for fixed terms. As a result, the appointments of the present Commissioners are indefinite in duration and can only be terminated by express revocation of the President.

The Commissioners only work as a body during a major and comprehensive revision of all our Acts and subsidiary legislation. Hence, most of the appointments should be on fixed terms as this will allow for fresh appointments to be made from time to time as the need arises. The only persons who should be appointed on a permanent basis are the Attorney- General, the Solicitor-General and the Parliamentary Counsel.

Sir, the Bill therefore provides that every Commissioner, other than the Attorney- General, Solicitor-General and Parliamentary Counsel, shall be appointed for a fixed term of not more than three years.

Sir, the second shortcoming is that, currently, the Act requires the Commissioners to publish a revised edition of every Act and subsidiary legislation after 1st January following the date of its enactment or amendment. In the case of Acts, this is dispensed with if the amendments have not been extensive, in which event, these minor amendments are collectively published in a separate booklet which the Commissioners are required to publish. This booklet was intended to provide a noter-up service to the Acts.

This arrangement is unsatisfactory. The Commissioners cannot revise any Act or subsidiary legislation sooner than 1st January following the date of its amendment even if the Act or subsidiary legislation has been so extensively amended that it is desirable to revise it immediately. Moreover, experience has shown that the publication of the booklet of minor amendments is not necessary. Lawyers do not find it useful, preferring instead to notate any amendments directly into their statute books.

Sir, the Bill therefore gives the Commissioners greater discretion to decide when an Act or subsidiary legislation should be revised and to do away with the requirement for the Commissioners to publish the booklet of minor amendments.

In addition, Sir, the Bill introduces a loose-leaf system for the publication of our statutes. The present loose-booklet system was introduced in the 1985 revised edition of Acts, as an improvement over the book system which was then in use. The loose booklet is useful in that it ensures that both revised editions of Acts and subsidiary legislation are self-renewing and self-expanding, kept up-to-date by replacing those Acts or subsidiary legislation which have been amended with fresh booklets incorporating the amendments.

However, Sir, since our adoption of the loose-booklet system, countries such as Hong Kong, Canada and Brunei have begun to publish their statutes in loose-leaf form, which is even better because it allows for speedy, easy and convenient updating of any amended statute. Whenever a statute is amended, it is updated by simply replacing the actual pages affected by the amendment with new pages incorporating the amendments. In this way, Sir, users do not have to wait until a new revised edition of the statute is published to have a fresh updated copy of the statute. When such a system is fully operational, there will no longer be any need for annual revisions.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Bedok GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

Sir, whilst this House has a heavy responsibility of debating Bills and making laws for Singapore, it is also important to publish these laws in such a manner that they are accessible to the legal profession and the public at large. The improvements moved by this Bill are based on the experience of the Law Commissioners. These learned men and women should know what is required to make their task more productive. In particular, I commend the implementation of the loose-leaf system of publishing our statutes. Those of us who have looked up statutes will realise how messy it can be when a statute has been heavily amended with lots of cuts and paste sections stuck all over the pages. With a loose-leaf system, such a cut and paste approach will be dispensed with. In addition, the amendment to give the Commissioners the discretion to reprint a heavily amended Act even before the ensuing 1st January is a very practical one. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary how the loose-leaf system will be implemented. Does it mean that all current loose-booklet statutes will be replaced? If so, will this be costly and extravagant?

Lastly, I will also ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the implication of this Bill on the use of information technology in the legal profession as in LawNet.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I refer the Parliamentary Secretary to clause 2 of the Bill, in particular to this amended section 3(1)(d), which reads:

`(1) The President may appoint a Law Revision Commission comprising, as Law Revision Commissioners -

(d) such other persons as may be appointed by the President.'

Would the Minister be willing to recommend to the President that these "such other persons" may comprise at least one nominee from the Law Society?

These statutes and laws of Singapore are the tools of lawyers and they are the people who are handling the law every day. It would be inappropriate if they were not included in this Law Revision Commission. They can certainly give important and relevant feedback to improve the revision of the laws.

The last time the statutes were published in book form was in 1970. It was not until 1985 that the Revised Editions were published. So there was a long lapse of time and many lawyers found it very inconvenient with their statute books full of pasted and notated amended sections of the law. If the Law Revision Commission had a lawyer or a representative from the Law Society at that time, perhaps the revision could have come sooner and make the work of the lawyers more convenient.

It is also noted that every time Revised Editions of the laws are published, the cost of each of these publications goes up. I do not know whether the Law Revision Commission has something to do with the pricing, but certainly I would ask the Minister to look into the cost of these Revised Editions of the law. I believe the 1970 full edition of the Singapore Statutes costs less than $1,000, but when the Revised Editions were published in 1985 they cost more than $3,000. Perhaps the Minister could look into the cost of the publications of the revised laws and make them readily available to the man-in-the-street who would certainly like to know the progress of the law.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: First, let me thank the Chairman of the GPC (Law) for his support of the Bill.

Sir, the Chairman of the GPC (Law) makes two points. The first relates to the manner in which the loose-leaf system will be introduced. He makes a good point, a valid point, a very keen observation, that if we were to introduce a loose-leaf system all at once to replace the loose-booklet system, it may seem wasteful. Therefore, Sir, the methodology we have envisaged, whereby the loose-leaf system would be introduced is to phase it in. Whenever a new Act is enacted or a Revised Edition of an Act is amended, the format in which the new Act or Revised Edition will come out will be the loose-leaf form. In other words, not a once- for-all replacement, it is a gradual phasing-in. Over several years we will have a loose-leaf system fully operational.

The other point the Chairman of the GPC (Law) makes is to ask whether the LawNet system, the statutes database, will replace the Revised Edition of the Laws. Sir, I think it is not envisaged that the statutes database in LawNet will replace the Revised Edition of the Laws.

First and foremost, Sir, the publication of our written laws is required, both under the Constitution as well as under the Interpretation Act. Therefore, LawNet is not to replace the publication of our written laws.

Secondly, under section 7 of the Revised Edition of the Laws Act, it is stated that in all courts and for all purposes the sole and proper Statute Book of Singapore is the Revised Edition of the Laws.

The third point, Sir, is a more practical point. Whilst LawNet is used mainly by lawyers as a very useful research tool for quick updated information on the laws of Singapore, I am sure everyone in this House will agree that our laws should be made available to as wide a segment of the population as possible and at costs which are affordable. Therefore, Sir, it is envisaged that, and this is in fact provided for in the Revised Edition of the Laws, these laws shall be published and made available to the public. Therefore the LawNet system cannot fully replace the Revised Edition of the Laws.

Mr Chiam makes two points. First, he asks whether or not members of the Law Society - I would guess he means legal practitioners - will be appointed as Law Commissioners. Sir, as the Act provides, the appointment of Law Commissioners is made by the President. In the past, I think he will know that we have had, for example, members of the Law Faculty, eminent members, who have been appointed to the Law Commission. In other words, the Law Commission is not a closed-door affair. Even though we provide for the appointment of the AG, the SG and the Parliamentary Counsel, as and when there are members of the legal fraternity with expertise, they will be appointed. Prof. Tan Sook Yee provides an example. So I think we must leave it to the President in his wisdom to decide on who fits the bill to be appointed to the very important appointment of Law Revision Commissioner.

The other point which Mr Chiam makes is about cost which is in fact a point met by this Bill. With the loose-leaf system, there will be no need to replace booklets in their entirety and, therefore, this should reduce costs in the long run.

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. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

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