EXTRADITION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

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 amends the Extradition Act in order to enable the continuation of the system of extradition with Hong Kong.

Currently, the Extradition Act allows the extradition of fugitives to and from "foreign States" and declared Commonwealth countries. Extradition vis-�-vis Hong Kong was on the basis of the provision on declared Commonwealth countries. From 1st July 1997, Hong Kong ceased to be part of the Commonwealth. As a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong is no longer a Commonwealth State, nor is it, strictly speaking, a "foreign State" within the meaning of the Extradition Act.

In order to enable extradition arrangements with territories which have a special status such as Hong Kong, it is therefore necessary to amend the Act. This Bill therefore amends the definition of "foreign State" to include any territory specified in the new Third Schedule to the Act, with which Singapore has an extradition treaty.

Sir, for the benefit of Members, let me say that the United Kingdom has taken a similar approach on the ground that the Hong Kong SAR is a sui generis entity in international law. Last year, the United Kingdom made elaborate amendments to their Extradition Act 1989 so that its provisions pertaining to foreign States, designated Commonwealth countries and colonies also applied to the Hong Kong SAR. We, however, have taken a simpler approach of widening the definition of "foreign State" so that it covers not just states but also "territories" such as the Hong Kong SAR.

Sir, the Bill repeals and re-enacts section 45 of the Act to empower the Minister, by order published in the Gazette, to amend, add to or vary the new Third Schedule when an extradition treaty between any territory and Singapore has come into force or has ceased to be in force, as the case may be.

Sir, the new Third Schedule in the Bill sets out the territories with which Singapore has an extradition treaty. The Schedule lists the Hong Kong SAR of the People's Republic of China. Singapore and the Hong Kong SAR signed an Agreement for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders on 11th November last year. It will enable Singapore and Hong Kong to surrender persons accused or convicted of offences committed within the jurisdiction of either Party, who are found within the jurisdiction of the other, subject to the terms of the Agreement.

When this Bill is enacted and comes into force, Hong Kong will be gazetted under section 4(1)(b) of the Act as a "foreign State" for the purposes of this Act and for the purposes of the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) (Consolidation) Declaration (Chapter 103, Declaration 1) will be amended to remove Hong Kong from the list of declared Commonwealth countries.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, my understanding of extradition is that it is dependent entirely on statute. My question to the Minister is that since Hong Kong is not a sovereign state, can it sign an extradition treaty with the Republic of Singapore? Unlike the UK, we have not amended our laws in this respect.

As regards the extradition treaty signed between Hong Kong and Singapore, may I ask the Minister whether it was at the initiative of the Hong Kong government or was it on our Government's initiative? I would like to further ask the Minister what are the criteria he would look into before an extradition treaty is signed between Singapore and a foreign country. In this respect, may I ask how many of the countries in ASEAN have signed extradition treaties with Singapore other than Thailand?

Sir, I would like to refer to section 3 of our Extradition Act. I note that in that section, English extradition laws are incorporated into our statute. Section 3 puts into effect in our Extradition Act all those foreign States which have signed extradition treaties with England as if they had signed extradition treaties with us. Since we are now making amendments to our Extradition Act, I would like to ask the Minister why he does not now also include the list of foreign States in the new Third Schedule. In the absence of the full list of foreign States in our Extradition Act, we have to look to the English Extradition Act to find out all the names of countries which have an extradition treaty with us by virtue of the said English Act. This is quite inconvenient, to say the least. Would the Minister consider putting the full list of foreign States in our new Third Schedule?

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I have noted the various points and questions raised by Mr Chiam. As to who initiated it, my recollection is that there was a mutual desire by both sides that the arrangements, which previously existed, should continue. In other words, it was in the interest on the law and order grounds of both Hong Kong and Singapore that the arrangements, which had been in place for extradition before Hong Kong became an SAR, should continue.

Secondly, on whether they had the competence, I understand that they had the competence and there was no objection by the People's Republic of China.

Thirdly, as to which ASEAN countries have formal extradition agreements, the position is that we have extradition arrangements with Malaysia and Brunei and the kind of expeditious arrangements are set out in our criminal procedures.

As to the provision which he referred to concerning extradition treaties entered into by the United Kingdom and other foreign countries, yes, before Singapore separated and became independent, the United Kingdom had its extradition treaties with other countries which may have listed Singapore in its scope of operations. It does not follow that, today, all those arrangements automatically apply. In other words, the Singapore Government will have to carefully consider whether all these treaty obligations are automatically binding on us before we can consider publication of the treaties. So this will be done periodically by the Attorney-General's Chambers in consultation with those countries concerned. But I want to make the point that it is not automatic that all those extradition arrangements will apply in each and every case.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I believe the Minister has left out one point, which is on the criteria for us to enter into an extradition treaty with another country. Also, in the case of Malaysia and Brunei, my reading of the law is that extradition can only be carried out when there is an extradition treaty. If we do not have an extradition treaty with Malaysia and Brunei, how do we force those governments to hand over a fugitive to Singapore?

Prof. Jayakumar: If the Member will recall I do not have the statutory provisions with me right now there are statutory provisions for Malaysia and Brunei to provide for this and I shall be happy, at a later occasion, to refer these statutory provisions to the Member.

As for the criterion for any extradition arrangements, not only for Singapore, it is whether the two countries concerned feel that there is a desire, a shared desire, that in the interest of law and order, it is mutually beneficial for there to be an agreement for the reciprocal handing over of fugitives. But that is a general principle. There also has to be agreement on the nature of offences which are known as extraditable offences and also on who are extraditable persons. Sometimes these arrangements are easier to conclude when countries have very similar legal systems and procedures. Where countries have rather distinctly different legal systems and procedures, it may be more difficult to conclude. So, the general approach is, first, there must be a mutuality of interest that they want to conclude these agreements and, secondly, flowing from that, they will have to examine the legal provisions whether they are compatible or 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.