MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES (PUBLIC ORDER AND NUISANCE) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, from time to time, the Ministry of Home Affairs reviews the laws under its purview to ensure that they serve current needs effectively. Hence, the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act was recently reviewed. Several provisions in the Act require updating.

Sir, this Amendment Bill seeks to introduce changes in the following areas:

First, it seeks to create three new offences. They are:

(1) making nuisance or silent calls on public emergency telephone lines, ie, 999 or 995 calls;

(2) using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards a person to provoke violence, cause fear, harassment, alarm or distress; and

(3) appearing nude in public or exposed to public view.

Secondly, it seeks to regard the offence of fortune telling and related practices as an offence only if such an act affects public order.

Thirdly, the Bill seeks to refine certain provisions in the Act to enable more effective enforcement and to increase the penalties for certain offences to enhance their deterrent effect. New offence of making nuisance or silent calls to public emergency telephone lines

Sir, let me first talk about the new offence of making nuisance or silent calls to public emergency telephone lines. Sir, the "999" emergency service line is meant for calls for immediate police assistance in emergencies. However, recent Police statistics show that about 75% of all 999 calls are nuisance, silent or obscene calls. A nuisance call is a telephone call to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass the emergency telephone line operator. Examples which Police have encountered include callers who whistled, laughed or giggled before hanging up the telephone or who spoke nonsensically, incoherently or mimicked the operator. Such calls substantially load or hog the emergency line at the expense of genuine callers who need quick access to the emergency service where every second counts. Some members of the public have complained to the Police that they cannot get through quickly enough to our "999" line.

Let me quote you a real-life case of repeated nuisance calls. For six years, Police received countless nuisance calls from the same person. The person made a total of 1,326 calls to "999" in a matter of two weeks. Various measures were taken. Police sent a letter of advice, issued warnings, instituted investigations and even apprehended the person red-handed once while the person was calling "999" from a public telephone. The problem ceased only after the family replaced the house phone with a telephone with locking facilities.

Sir, the Police has been dealing patiently with such false calls. They trace the calls and send advice and warning letters to the subscribers of the telephone lines. More than 500 advice letters and 200 warning letters are sent out each month. This is a waste of Police resources. This measure is over and above the many public exhortations to the public not to abuse emergency lines. Since 1989, we have on many occasions alerted the public to the situation, calling for greater restraint and supervision of children. In my speech when I launched a public campaign in March 1995, I said that if the situation remains unabated, more effective measures must be found. A year has passed. Unfortunately, the problem remains serious.

The current situation is untenable. To let the House know the magnitude of the problem, let me cite some figures. In 1994, Police and SCDF received 173,588 nuisance calls, an average of 476 calls a day. In 1995, the figure rose to 178,430.

Sir, the Police has identified three principal factors causing this unsatisfactory state of affairs. First, our current laws are an inadequate deterrent. We can only prosecute callers who make obscene calls or who transmit false information. Our laws do not cover nuisance and silent calls. Secondly, it is extremely difficult to nab culprits who call from public telephones. Thirdly, Police estimates that young children account for some 78% of nuisance calls. We do not want to prosecute young children if there are better ways to deter or discourage them. A better solution would be for their parents to control them.

Sir, to deal with this problem more effectively, clause 8 of the Bill seeks to create new sections 14A, 14B and 14C. Under the new section 14A(1), it will be an offence for any person to make a telephone call to an emergency telephone number with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person who answers that call. An emergency telephone number has been defined as any number which has been gazetted as an emergency telephone number. For this purpose, police and civil defence emergency telephone numbers will be gazetted as emergency telephone numbers under this section. The penalty for making a nuisance call is a fine of up to $5,000 or one year's jail or both. Similarly, under section 14A(2), it is an offence for any person to make an obscene call to an emergency telephone number. The penalty is a fine of up to $10,000 or three years' jail or both. Under subsection (3), persons who use public telephones to make nuisance calls will be liable to a higher penalty of $10,000 fine or two years' jail or both. For obscene calls made from public telephones, the penalty is a fine of up to $20,000 or five years' jail or both. The higher penalties under section 14A(3) also take into account the fact that public telephones are public facilities, and that it is more difficult to apprehend the culprits.

Under the new section 14B, a subscriber (other than subscribers of public telephones) whose telephone lines have been used to make such calls will also be guilty of an offence unless he proves that he had exercised due diligence to prevent these calls from being made. The penalty under this new section is a fine of up to $5,000. No imprisonment is prescribed. Let me assure parents that the Police will not adopt a blunderbuss approach. Two warnings will be issued prior to prosecution. Parents would therefore have been alerted to their children's wrongful acts. They should then exercise due diligence by taking appropriate actions to stop their children from continuing with these acts. They could, for example, firstly, closely supervise the telephone's usage, especially when young children are seen using the telephone. Secondly, educate their children on the importance of emergency numbers and the consequence of misuse. Thirdly, keep the telephone physically out of reach of small children who are too young to understand the gravity of their action. And, fourthly, use locking devices. There are two such devices in the market. The "Dial Stop 102" gadget can be used to prevent outgoing calls to "999". It comes either with or without an emergency sticker. Alternatively, the subscriber can use a telephone with locking facilities.

A new section 14C will empower the Police to obtain from a person or organisation information regarding the particulars of the subscribers of the telephone lines. The penalty for non compliance with Police's request is a fine of up to $2,000 or six months' jail or both. The section also grants the custodian immunity from legal suit for such disclosure. This is necessary in respect of the unlisted telephone number service provided by Singapore Telecom. Currently, it would be a breach of contract for Singapore Telecom to disclose such information. New offence of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour to provoke violence or cause fear, harassment, alarm or distress.

Sir, under the existing section 13(f), a person is guilty of an offence of abusive language or behaviour only if he intends to provoke a breach of the peace, ie, fighting or causing violence in public, or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be caused Thus, section 13(f) deals with conduct that is likely to lead to unlawful violence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in practice, it is difficult to prove intention to provoke a breach of the peace under this section. For example, case law has decided that a person shouting at a police officer or an old lady currently cannot be convicted of the offence of abusive language under section 13(f) as the police officer or old lady cannot be provoked into committing a breach of the peace, ie, to fight with the person. We cannot therefore charge him under this provision. In the UK, where our public order law originates, this concept of breach of the peace under their Public Order Act 1986 has been replaced with the causing of fear or provocation of violence. I will elaborate on this later.

To deal with this problem and to update our laws relating to public order, clause 6 of the Bill seeks to create four new sections 13A to 13D. Section 13A is modelled after section 4A of the UK Public Order Act and deals with the situation where a person uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any such sign to another person with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress to that person. The penalty is a fine not exceeding $5,000.

Let me quote you a recent example reported in the New Paper. Installers from a window grille company used scare tactics such as talking loudly or using vulgarities to intimidate a poor housewife. They threatened her when she decided to change her mind over the installation of new window grilles. She was so shaken by the whole experience that she could not sleep well at night and worried for her children's safety. If this incident were to take place after this Bill is passed, the installers could be prosecuted under this new section.

The new section 13B deals with a situation where a person uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or displays any such sign within the hearing of any person which is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to that person. The penalty is a fine not exceeding $2,000. This section is based on section 5 of the UK Public Order Act which was introduced in the UK in 1986 to criminalise nuisance behaviour, both in public as well as in private property. It was intended to deal with minor acts of hooliganism and was aimed at protecting the elderly and the minorities in the UK from harassment. Although we do not have widespread problems of this nature in Singapore, it is necessary to update our law on public order to empower the Police to take action should such a situation arise.

A new section 13C will replace the existing section 13(f) of the Act. It deals with threatening, abusive or insulting words that are likely to be taken as a prelude to violence by the victim. The penalty for this offence is a fine not exceeding $2,000. This section is modelled after section 4 of the UK Public Order Act which, I have briefly mentioned earlier, was enacted in the UK to remove the problems caused by proving breach of peace. The new section 13C obviates the need to prove likelihood of a violent reaction to the threatening words. All that is required is a likelihood of the victim fearing that violence or threat of violence will occur. Thus an offence under this section will be committed even if the victim is unable or unlikely to react with violence, eg, in the case of the old lady which I mentioned.

Sir, to protect a police officer or other public servant from being abused or threatened, the new section 13D makes it an offence for any person to use threatening, abusive, insulting words or signs at a public servant carrying out his duty. To reflect the seriousness of this offence, the penalty is set at $5,000 fine or one year's jail. New offence of appearing nude in public view.

Members of the House may recall the strong public sentiments over a case of a couple who was seen nude in their Yishun Town flat. Although one has a right to privacy in one's home, this should not, however, be at the expense of public decency such as nude exposure. This is especially so in the context of our public housing. With an increasing number of Singaporeans living in close quarters in high-rise buildings, such behaviour must be checked. We must maintain a certain level of public morality and behaviour. The purpose of this section is therefore to protect the morality and dignity of neighbouring residents and passers-by.

Clause 11 of the Bill seeks to create a new section 27A to make it an offence for any person to appear nude in a public place or in a private place which is exposed to public view. The penalty is a fine not exceeding $2,000 or three months' jail or both. To facilitate enforcement, the police officer is given the necessary power, including the use of force, to enter a private place to arrest such an offender under subsection (4).

Here again, Sir, as in the case of abuse of emergency lines, Police will be judicious in invoking the provision. In most cases, Police would very likely be acting on complaints. Complaints are unlikely to be lodged unless the offensive acts are regular or blatant.

To fine-tune the offence of fortune telling and the practice of related trades

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's law on fortune-telling as found in the Miscellaneous Offences Act originated from the Minor Offences Ordinance of 1906 which was based on the UK Vagrancy Act 1824. As worded, section 27(b) of the Act currently prohibits the telling of fortune, in all forms, including geomancy and palmistry. Such a prohibition is wider than intended. Geomancy, palmistry and astrology have been practised for many years and such a law would not be fully applicable.

Our main concern here is that operators and practitioners, especially roadside operators, do not cause a public nuisance or under the guise of fortune telling, commit other offences such as cheating. Since 1985, there have been some 64 convictions involving itinerant fortune-tellers. As it is already an offence to use fortune telling and any subtle craft to deceive and impose on any person, clause 10 of the Bill seeks to amend section 27 to make it clear that section 27(b) applies only to those persons whose act of fortune telling causes or is likely to cause a public nuisance. Examples could be fortune-tellers setting up make-shift stalls in the public, especially in crowded places causing obstruction to human and vehicular traffic flows, or fortune-tellers touting their services to passers-by in public places and thereby causing annoyance.

Other amendments

The Bill also seeks to refine other provisions of the Act to facilitate enforcement. First, currently under section 14(2), Police is empowered to enter any private premises to remove any instrument that is used to create excessive noise. However, this section does not extend to the removal of the instrument from a public place. This is an anomaly. Therefore, clause 7 of the Bill seeks to amend section 14(2) to extend the power to deal more effectively with noise nuisance in a public place. It will enable police to stop any person in a public place from making excessive noise and to remove the instruments causing the noise should the need arise.

Secondly, under the existing section 22(1)(a), it is an offence for a person to be armed with a dangerous or offensive instrument with intent to commit an offence This requires the prosecution to prove not only that the person is armed with a dangerous or offensive instrument but also that he intended to commit an offence with it. Unless the accused admits it, it is impossible to prove his intent. To overcome this problem so as to facilitate prosecution, clause 9 of the Bill seeks to create a new subsection (1A) to place on the accused the onus of proving that he has a lawful purpose to be armed with the dangerous or offensive instrument. Enhancement of penalties for certain offences

Sir, I come now to the remaining amendments which are minor amendments. Clause 3, 4 and 5 seek to amend sections 9, 10(1) and 13. Sections 9 and 10 deal with dog owners who negligently permit their ferocious dog to be let loose without a muzzle or whose dogs cause injury to another person. Section 13 deals with persons whose acts cause an obstruction on public road. We are proposing to enhance the penalties for these offences from a maximum fine of $1,000 to $5,000. These amendments are necessary to maintain their deterrent effect.

In particular, I wish to highlight section 10(1). Incidents of ferocious dogs attacking and causing injuries to innocent passers-by must be checked. The offence is a growing menace and is fairly prevalent. In 1993, there were 47 cases. In 1995, the number rose to 65 cases. The punishment for this offence must be enhanced to maintain its necessary deterrent effect.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill.

The new sections 13A and 13B are especially welcome as, amongst other things, they address the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace. And with your permission, Sir, may I distribute a survey form on sexual harassment to the Members, please. [Copies of document distributed to hon. Members].

Sexual harassment in the workplace is any form of unsolicited, uninvited, unreciprocated and unwelcome behaviour of an offensive and insulting nature which causes harassment, alarm or distress to another person.

An Aware Survey of 1,600 women working in 56 selected companies in Singapore (done in 1993) showed that sexual harassment exists in the Singapore workplace and Members can see the table which shows the more serious forms of harassment encountered by the survey respondents.

In all, 184 women, or 11% of the 1,600 women surveyed, reported some form of sexual harassment which caused them distress and anguish in the workplace. Cases of sexual harassment have also been reported to hotlines.

To the extent that women's productivity can be improved and distress and anguish reduced if sexual harassment is controlled, greater efforts must be made to ascertain the extent of sexual harassment in the workplace. A more comprehensive survey should thus be made. Efforts to educate workers as to the nature of sexual harassment and the possible responses to it should also be intensified.

Sir, I am therefore very glad that there is now a legal remedy for cases of sexual harassment in the workplace as provided by the new sections 13A and 13B.

However, there is one area which has not been addressed in the amendments, and this refers to telephone harassment, not to an emergency telephone line, but where a person rings up a stranger, usually of the opposite sex, and makes lewd and obscene remarks. Some of these phone calls are made from public booths. What recourse do these victims have to this form of harassment or nuisance which causes distress and anguish? I would like a response from the Minister, please.

Finally, Sir, I would like to suggest one further amendment to the main Act - Section 27(d), which reads as follows, and I quote:

`... every person wilfully, openly, lewdly and obscenely exposing his person in any street, road or public highway, or in the view thereof, or in any place of public resort, with intent to insult any female ...'. Here, the word "female" should be changed to "person" because I am sure that with this offence of flashing, males would also feel insulted. I am sure every male Member of this House will feel insulted. Would the Minister please consider this amendment?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I thank Dr Kanwaljit Soin for supporting the Bill. Indeed she is right that all Singaporeans, not just females, I am sure, welcome these amendments.

Sir, she makes three points. The first point that she has made is that she welcomes the provisions in section 13 and that it provides, in her mind, an outlet for those female workers who are subject to sexual harassment in the workplace. One point that I would like to raise first is that currently women who are subject to such harassment in the workplace is not entirely devoid of an avenue. I am sure Dr Soin is aware of section 509 of the Penal Code which is wide enough to cover a situation where a woman who feels that her modesty has been insulted can have recourse under that section. In so far as situations of harassment in the workplace are concerned, as she has mentioned, the provisions are very wide. And in so far as any situation may fall within section 13, then section 13 may provide an alternative route.

The other point that Dr Soin mentioned is telephone harassment. Here again, Sir, section 509 is a section which is invoked under the law to prosecute persons who call the emergency lines and if the person receiving the call is a female, the obscene caller can be prosecuted under section 509. Here again, it is not as though there is no provision under which a person who is subject to telephone harassment cannot find recourse. The problem, as the Police tells me, of telephone harassment, not to an emergency line, is that it is a matter of proving. In an emergency line, everything is recorded. It is easy to trace. But if it is a private line, it is difficult to prove and track a person down and to discharge the burden of proof. She has suggested specific provisions to cover telephone harassment. This is a suggestion on her part and I would ask my officials to study it and consider her suggestion.

The other amendment that she suggests is in fact not covered under the Bill. It is on another section, ie, section 27(d). Here again, she says why not widen the ambit so that not only females will be protected but also males as well. I would be careful to amend any provision which is designed to specifically protect females, particularly from sexual offences, lest in amending the section, the protection is diluted. But since the Member has raised it, here again I will ask my officials to study it and see whether there is indeed a need for such an amendment.

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.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 -

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Sir, I beg to move,

In page 6, line 7, to leave out from "14A" to "be" in line 10, and to insert "and who knowingly permitted the commission of the said offence, shall".

I have heard the Senior Parliamentary Secretary explain the rationale for new sections 14A to 14C and I have no quarrel with those sections. What bothers me is the width of new section 14B. If Members will look at section 14B, they will see that this is a provision that basically makes the subscriber responsible for what people do with their phone. Look at section 14B, which states:

`Any person being the subscriber to a telephone service which has been used to commit an offence under section 14A shall, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the court that he had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.'

So all that has to be proven by the prosecution is that you are the subscriber of the service and that your phone has been used to commit an offence under section 14A. Then the burden shifts to you, the subscriber, to prove to the satisfaction of the court that you had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. May I ask hon. Members what steps do they normally take to prevent people using their phones to commit offences? Do you lock up your phone as a matter of course? Do you monitor the usage of your phone by your house guests? If you have parents staying with you, do you watch what they do and listen in on the extension? What about your maid? Is your maid incapacitated while you go out? What is meant by "due diligence"?

May I say, Sir, that most people leave the phone alone when they go out, and they have no idea what people in the house do with the phone while they are out. You are putting a burden on subscribers to prove that they have taken steps to prevent a commission of the offence. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Police will not take a blunderbuss approach. We are all glad of that, no doubt. But that is not built into the law. If the section had said that the subscriber is guilty of an offence after an offence is committed when he has been given two written warnings, then I would have no trouble with this at all, because he has got two written warnings. Then he can take due diligence. Right now, nothing is said about prior warning, nothing is said about prior conviction. Nothing. You are the subscriber, you have to show due diligence. Most people take no steps. No steps cannot be "due diligence". Therefore, if you are a subscriber, and you have taken no steps to prevent a commission of an offence, and God forbid, somebody does commit an offence with your phone, technically you are guilty.

Now, may I say, Sir, that as a matter of drafting technique, it is unwise, and I think undesirable, to draft the section so wide that everybody commits an offence, and the Police decide who to prosecute. This is a driftnet. It is a legal equivalent of a driftnet. You put it out 200 miles into the ocean, and catch everything, and then decide which fish you want, which fish you throw back. That as a drafting technique, I would say, should not be adopted.

Hence, my suggestion is that we amend section 14B so that only those who knowingly permit the commission of the said offence will be guilty of an offence. If this is unacceptable to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, may I suggest that he propose some amendment so that there is a built-in warning mechanism so that people are not guilty of an offence without prior warning, and therefore have to depend upon whether the Police are going to be reasonable or not reasonable in prosecution.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Jalan Besar GRC): Sir, I would like to add my view on this point. I do not understand why Prof. Woon mentioned about a driftnet. I am not a lawyer, but if you were to listen to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's speech carefully, 78% of the calls are from children. And therefore it is important for us to make sure that the parents are responsible for it, and they take the necessary preventive measure. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary has already assured the House that ample notice will be given to the parents, in particular, who are the telephone subscribers. Therefore, I do not think that Prof. Woon should make use of the legal terminology "driftnet", as far as this particular amendment is concerned. I support and agree that this approach will ensure that responsible parents control their children so that they do not make crank calls or nuisance calls, thereby making the Police ineffective and unproductive.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I am sure Prof. Woon is well-meaning in his suggestion. But I think we should look at things in perspective. We have to make it such that the situation will improve. We have all these years been going on public education. However, the situation remains bad and it is untenable. The most practical way, therefore, is to put the burden on the person who has control of the instrument to take reasonable steps to ensure that the lines are not abused. I think a corollary would be the approach we took when we made contractors responsible for the security measures in their workplace, because they are the best people to take the necessary measures.

Currently, in fact, Police does not take a blunderbuss approach. So it cannot be that when we enact a law like that, we are going to make it even tougher all-round. The penalty will be tougher, yes, but we will continue with the warnings. After two warnings are given, the due diligence part will be looked at from the viewpoint of what you have done or not done after the warnings have been given to you. And if despite the warnings, calls are still continued, then I think for the sake of all Singaporeans who are delayed in making emergency calls, these amendments are needed.

The other point is that once we make nuisance calls an offence under the law, a parent or a subscriber who knowingly permits his phone to be used for such a call will be guilty of abetment. I am sure Prof. Woon agrees. Therefore, if we take his amendment, it adds no additional teeth to the law. It is a restatement of the current position but in a different way. Therefore, to arrest this trend, and to make sure the situation improves, I would urge him to re-think, and withdraw his amendment and for the House to agree that indeed the steps that are being suggested in the Bill are reasonable steps.

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: With regard to Mr Choo's point, I think he has missed it entirely. It is not just children we are worried about. Anybody could go into your house and use your phone. It could be your maid. It could be your parents. It could be a lodger. It could be a house guest. Anybody. Are we going to turn ourselves into something that George Orwell did not envisage in 1984 - a nation of big brother overlooking the phone? This is the point.

As a matter of drafting philosophy, what the Senior Parliamentary Secretary says here is fine, if only they would put it in the law. Why can they not put it in the law? Why must the law be drafted so wide that the offence is automatic and the Police have the discretion whether to prosecute or not. As a citizen, I feel very uncomfortable with laws that wide. Because that means it is not the courts that decide any more, it is the Police that decide whether you are going to be prosecuted and convicted.

As far as the point on abetment is concerned, may I correct, with respect, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. You are guilty of abetment if you instigate or if you assist. "Knowingly permit" is not abetment. It was not when I last looked at it. I do not know whether that has been changed in the meantime. So, I would say, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I would say to Members of this House, that if we let this through, that is fine, if the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's assurance on warnings can be written in. Otherwise, we set a very unfortunate precedent where you got a law that is so wide that once an offence is committed, there is really no defence. If they choose to prosecute you for whatever reason, it is practically impossible to defend yourself unless you are paranoid and lock up your phone beforehand.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 -

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Sir, I beg to move,

(1) In page 7, line 32, after "who", to insert "intentionally".

The first amendment that I am proposing to section 27A is self-explanatory. As it stands, section 27A merely says that "Any person who appears nude ... shall be guilty of an offence ...". If these were Victorian times, the mere appearance "nude" might revolt people's sensibilities. But we are 90 years removed from Queen Victoria, and the question of whether or not just the sight of a nude body is so disgusting that we have to criminalise it becomes an issue. If you do not have the word "intentionally", you are going to have arguments in courts between lawyers as to whether or not this is strict liability or not strict liability.

Remember that apart from prosecution which is brought by the Police and by the prosecutors, there are things called private prosecutions. Do we want to open the door to this kind of situation where some prudish prim busybodies have seen a nude body and are so revolted and try to bring a private prosecution because they cannot stand the sight of nudity? So to make things clear, I have proposed that we insert the word "intentionally" in the first line of section 27A. The person only commits an offence if he intentionally appears nude. That cuts out all the problems of those who accidentally appear nude or do not intend to expose themselves. The problem of proving intention is one that the courts are well capable of handling. The laws are full of sections that require intention and prosecutors have thus far no problem of proving intention even in serious crimes like murder. I do not think it is beyond the wits of our public prosecutors to prove intention in something like appearing nude.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Sir, I find that the proposed amendment by Prof. Woon to add the word "intentionally" before the phrase "appears nude" quite problematic. First of all, Sir, I cannot understand how a person can unintentionally appear nude. Can a person take off his clothes when he has no intention to do so? Not unless this person is sleepwalking or is unconscious and being stripped off by someone.

But, I think, Sir, this provision actually seeks to protect the public from the embarrassment and harm that can be caused, especially to children, by the sight of a naked human body parading around in his own apartment. The case cited by Prof. Ho, which was widely publicised, is indeed a very good point. When it comes down to protecting public morals and decency, especially those of our children's, I agree that we should take a strong stand.

I am happy that Prof. Ho has assured the House that the Police will not take a blunderbuss approach. I think ample notice and warnings will be given to the so-called telephone subscribers and people who appear nude. I am sure sufficient notice and warnings will be given to them. Prof. Ho has actually assured the House. I do not think it is necessary for Prof. Woon to ask the House to consider adding the word "intentionally" just before the phrase "appears nude".

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I would like to thank Mr Choo for his comments. He has mentioned the key point in my speech where I have mentioned that the Police will not take a blunderbuss approach. The intent behind this provision is to ensure that those who are exhibitionists, those who are regular, persistent or blatant, there will be in the law a tool by which Police can hit at them. I think the Yishun case brings up very clearly that Police should not be made to stand helplessly by, not being able to do anything, especially where public morals and decency are involved. Given the fact that we live very closely to one another, and I am sure our children will live even more closely to one another, this provision is necessary. Quite apart from the conceptual point that Mr Choo raised, ie, whether a person can really be nude unintentionally, from a practical point of view, if we insert the word suggested by Prof. Woon, it will in fact give an outlet for a person who actually is an exhibitionist to say that, "Oh, I was absent-minded about it." or "I didn't know that I was nude." How do you prove that he intentionally took off his clothes unless you have a video camera, and that Prof. Woon would not want because he will say there is big brother overlooking him. He may think it is an overkill, but given my assurances in this House and given the practical need to ensure that the situation in Yishun does not repeat itself, I hope that this Bill, as it is, will be passed.

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Sir, if Mr Choo cannot imagine how people can be accidentally nude, I suggest that he is a man of very limited imagination. You go to a beach, you do not have proper changing facilities, you change behind the bush and, for some reason, your towel gets caught in a gust of wind, or pulled away accidentally. Is that intentionally nude? Assoc. Prof. Ho has been the Master of a Hall of Residence. No doubt, he has heard of student pranks where on somebody's birthday, they decide that he should appear in his birthday suit. They strip him. They take him to the end of the road. They dump him in the bushes. Is that intentionally nude? Is this what you mean to prosecute? He is after all appearing nude in a public place. "Intentionally" is there to make it clear that only those who intend to appear nude are prosecuted, not those who through no fault of their own or through accident appear nude. This is the point. Does the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mean to say that if a person is nude in a public place, whether it is a fault or not, he is guilty of an offence and can be prosecuted?

It is not the police that I am worried about. It is private prosecution by over-zealous members of the public, by people who are brilliant, by people who are prudish. This is the kind of thing that we worry about. "Intentionally" nude makes it quite clear that you have to have the intention. As far as proving intention is concerned, like I said, the Penal Code and the whole corpus of statutes are full of sections that require the proof of intention. If the public prosecutor can prove sufficient intention to convict people of murder, why can they not deal with the intention in something like this?

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has already assured the House that the police is not going to take that kind of approach. I do not go to beaches as often as the Member does. I do not know about bushes. I am sure along the East Coast Park, there must be a proper place for you to change. While you are changing clothes, something drops off and you appear nude, I am sure the AG's Chambers and the police will have the view that you are doing it unintentionally. Someone must prove beyond reasonable doubt that he appears nude unintentionally. So let us look at it from a wider scope, from a macro point of view. How many Singaporeans appear nude at home and walk or parade around, or they change in the bushes? How often and how many of them really intentionally appear nude in public places? We are not trying to catch the general public, ie, the law-abiding public in Singapore. Not at all. I think we are trying to catch the exceptional ones. And I do not think Prof. Woon should be so eager in wanting to add the word "intentionally".

Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support Prof. Woon's proposal to amend clause 27A by inserting the word "intentionally" because some people are in the habit of sleeping in the nude. If suddenly there is a fire, they would have to rush out naked as they would probably have no time to put on any clothing. Even if they are clothed, their clothing may have been burnt and they may end up being naked. Under the amended law, they could be prosecuted. Therefore, the word "intentionally" is important here.

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: I take it from Mr Choo's speech that he does not think that people who accidentally appear nude should be prosecuted. Am I correct? Then why the resistance to making it plain in the law? Why leave it unsaid? This is the point. I think it is very unfortunate that we should have laws that are very wide, leave the definition to debates in the House, and when it goes to court, the court's hands are tied because the court does not have recourse to Parliamentary debates unless there is an ambiguity in the language. If the language is clear, the court must apply this. This is why I am saying that when we draft these laws, we have to be very, very careful about what we are doing. It is not just a philosophical point. It is also a practical point. We do not want to have a situation where people can be accused of breaking the law where there are no merits to the accusation because the law has been drafted widely and sloppily widely.

Amendment negatived.

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Sir, I beg to move,

(2) In page 8, at end, to add,

"(5) It shall be a defence to a prosecution under this section that the accused reasonably believed that he was not exposed to public view.".".

The last amendment that I have proposed is a defence to section 27A. Section 27A provides that if you are in a private place and you are nude and exposed to public view, you can be prosecuted for an offence. May I ask Members of the House again how many of them have sometimes appeared nude in their houses without thinking that anyone was watching? But somebody might be watching. We are talking about public housing here. You have situations where you could, not realising that your window blinds are not properly closed, not realising that your lights may be on, and therefore people can see into your house, appear nude. We are making it an offence for a person to be nude in a private place when exposed to public view. I am saying that it should be a defence and you reasonably believe that you were not exposed to public view. For those people who are offended by the sight of nudity in their neighbours' houses, may I give a little simple piece of advice, "Stop looking into your neighbour's windows!" But for those people who are accidentally exposed, as it were, because they do not realise that people can see them, why should we make it an offence? Why should it be a police case? Police come banging on your door. The embarrassment of being seen is already enough without having a police officer knocking on your door, seeking entry as well to arrest you. I am merely asking that we should have a little bit of reasonableness here so that the person can show that he did reasonably believe he was not exposed to public view, he has not committed an offence.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Sir, I am quite amazed by what Prof. Woon is trying to propose because I think the amendment seeks to protect the public, and it appears to me that the Member is trying to protect the nudists. In our Asian society, how many of us have the habit, like what Mr Cheo said, of walking in our sleep without clothes on and, like what Prof. Woon said, accidentally walk around in private homes without any clothes on? How many of us do that? And I think if these people who appear nude and walk around in their own apartment and it is within sight, it will give rise to public embarrassment. If the public complains, the police will take the necessary action to investigate and find out more about it before the police and the AG's Chambers decide whether to prosecute them. I am sure the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can confirm it. So I do not think Prof. Woon should be too worried about adding the word "intentionally" and talking about nudity at home as an excuse. Is that what he is trying to say? I do not understand.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, again, I think Prof. Woon is well meaning in his suggestion. Here, again, I hope that he would take a closer look at my speech where I put in context the reasons for the amendment. The police will not take a blunderbuss approach. Before the case goes to court, the AG's Chambers, which is the prosecutorial arm, in exercising its discretion, will look at all the circumstances of the case. Indeed, a person can be nude in his own home in many circumstances. It can be intentionally. It can be absent-mindedly. It can be unknowingly. But the point is that harm is done. If it is once-off or irregular, those factors would be taken into account by the police and the AG's Chambers in deciding whether or not to prosecute.

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: May I ask Mr Choo whether he baths fully clothed? Or is there some occasion on which he disrobes completely? The problem is not just nudity. If you look at subsection (2) of section 27A, you will see that "for the purpose of this section, the reference to a person appearing nude includes a person who is clad in such a manner as to offend against public decency or order." Does Mr Choo keep himself fully clothed at all times? Is there not some time when he is partially disrobed at least? This is the problem that this kind of wide drafting gives us. You are in your bedroom. You do not realise that the blinds are partially open. You are in a state of partial disrobement. Somebody has peeped in. They call the police. They say, "That is an offence under section 27A, please nab the fellow." Police come and bang on your door and say, "I am sorry, you have committed an offence." The embarrassment is already there. It is not just the police that we are worried about. In fact, it is not the police I am worried about. I am not worried about the AG's Chambers. The people in AG's Chambers have got commonsense. I am worried about private prosecutions by people who want to use this kind of thing as a means to harass their neighbours. Have you not heard of vindictive neighbours who will try and get other people into trouble? You leave the door open for them literally in a case like this.

All I am asking is that we have a simple section that says, "If you didn't realise that you are exposed to public view, you haven't committed an offence." What is so difficult about that? Or are we saying that merely exposing to public view is so heinous a crime that you must commit an offence? I do not think our society is that prudish. At the end of the 20th century, we do not have this kind of Victorian aversion to flesh that existed when these sections were first drafted. So all I am saying is, let us have a little bit of reasonableness so that the person can say, "Look here, I really didn't realise that these doors were open, the windows were open, the curtains were open." It is a defence.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Since Prof. Woon asked about my private life, I think I ought to reply. As a result of my upbringing, I am properly clothed at all times. I do not know about the Member. Since I am properly clothed at all times, I am not giving any chance for the public to complain about me walking around in my house nude. So probably, the Member has a chance to explain to the House about himself?

Amendment negatived.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.10 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.45 pm until 3.10 pm Sitting resumed at 3.10 pm