UNITED NATIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 1.05 pm

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

Singapore is a member of the United Nations. Like all other members of the United Nations, we are legally bound by the UN Charter to implement mandatory resolutions of the UN Security Council. A failure to give effect to the measures mandated by the Security Council would be a breach of our international obligations for which Singapore may be subject to censure and sanctions by the Security Council.

A good illustration is the recent United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 adopted on 28th September 2001 which was after the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11th. It calls upon member States to implement a series of measures against terrorism and the financing of terrorism. This resolution, passed under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, is binding on all member States. It calls for international cooperation to combat threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist attacks and provides for the imposition of strict new measures to criminalise and prevent the financing of terrorism.

Sir, the approach we have hitherto taken has been to implement mandatory UN Security Council resolutions through a variety of existing legislative and administrative measures. Where we have not been able to give effect to Security Council resolutions through existing laws, we have sought to amend specific legislation. For example, last year, Parliament amended the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act, the Air Navigation Act and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to enable Singapore to be better able to give effect to our various treaty obligations.

We can implement most of the requirements of the recent Security Council Resolution 1373 under our existing laws. However, given its unique scope and breadth of the resolution, there are some aspects of the resolution that cannot be met under our existing laws. For example, there is a requirement that member states shall:

"Criminalise the wilful provision or collection, by any means, directly or indirectly, of funds by their nationals or in their territories with the intention that the funds should be used, or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in order to carry out terrorist acts;" However, our existing laws do not criminalise the provision or collection of funds by Singapore citizens outside Singapore for criminal or terrorist acts committed outside Singapore.

We also have to consider the possibility that there may be future UN Security Council resolutions to deal with terrorism or other pressing international crimes. We would not be able to anticipate or predict the breadth and depth of these possible future resolutions. Nonetheless, we must ensure that we are in a position to be able to give effect to them effectively and promptly.

This Bill is therefore necessary to ensure that our laws are adequate and to overcome any possible lacuna that would prevent Singapore from effectively fulfilling our international obligations. This Act will enable the Government to pass such regulations necessary to give effect to the decisions of the UN Security Council. It will avoid a situation where gaps in our laws prevent us from implementing the UN Security Council resolutions.

Let me add that countries such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and India (amongst others) already have in place facilitating legislation, mostly broadly similar, to allow speedy implementation of Security Council decisions.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Simon S C Tay (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill.

The UN is the most important international organisation today, specifically for a small country like Singapore. Yet, there is no world government. In this sense, there is always a tension between what each country must do to fulfil its international obligations and what each country must do on the basis of the sovereignty of its own people as represented in Parliament.

Clearly, Sir, the UN Security Council has powers under Chapter VII to make laws and to bind governments, as the Minister has said. This is particularly under Article 41 of the UN Charter, read together with Article 48. In the past, this has not been of much use because each permanent member of the Security Council can exercise a veto and, during the Cold War, the disagreements among these permanent five members led to a very few resolutions being binding on the governments of the world. But since the end of the Cold War, there has been much more agreement among the permanent five and many more Chapter VII resolutions have been called for and this is likely to increase further in the wake of the 11th September events.

It is often good that the nations of the world can act in concert. There are, however, other cases in which there may be some cause for concern. While the general approach of the present Bill is correct, I think these questions must be raised in the minds of people. The first question is whether Singaporean laws will be overridden. The Bill provides that they can be. However, it also provides an assurance, Sir, that constitutional protection continues. This is reassuring for Singaporeans, that is to say, that while we will follow the UN Security Council directions, we will still be protected by the Singapore Constitution.

There is, however, another question as to whether this Bill, when given effect, would be through the Singapore police or other officials. This is because clause 2(1)(b) of the Bill provides that the Government or the Minister might empower whichever people they desire. If I could just read that relevant clause. This would allow "empowering any person or class of persons to exercise, when investigating any offence under this Act or any regulations made thereunder, all or any of the powers of a police officer under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68) in relation to seizable offences." In this sense, I would ask the Minister if he would envisage that non-Singaporeans, non-police officers or other persons would be used to effect these regulations.

Sir, I have three smaller questions. First, while I recognise that the UN Security Council has the power to compel all states, including small states such as Singapore, to follow its resolutions, there must be some thought given to the need to consult affected states. Singapore has, in the past, talked about UN Security Council reform and brought up the point about the need to consult smaller states before they are effected. I would like the Minister to answer whether this would continue to be our stand or whether now, we will simply accept whatever the UN Security Council decides upon. I ask this question in the context of some sanctions and other moves which in the long term have come to be questioned by such a community. These, for example, are the sanctions on Iraq that, in some views, have persisted for too long a time and affected many of the Iraqi people.

The second question I would like to ask is on the process of how we do this. As the Minister noted, in almost all cases up to now, we have amended the laws on a case by case basis. This requires that the laws would have to come to Parliament to be approved or disapproved. This is consistent with what is called the dualist theory of international law, that is to say, that while international law may say one thing, it is not binding in Singapore until it is incorporated through our national laws. And this keeps the primary focal point on our Parliament as a sovereign law-making body. However, Sir, in this present Bill, I notice that it will basically short-cut Parliament. It will delegate to the Executive the decisions on how to implement UN Security Council resolutions. Sir, I understand, in some ways, that these resolutions may come at such a pace and with such urgency that there may not be time to consider a Bill fully in Parliament. I wish to ask the Minister whether there will be some time for another mechanism, perhaps a consultation with a smaller group of Members of Parliament, like the GPC for Foreign Affairs.

My third point is that I do acknowledge the need for Singapore law to be consistent with international law, and I generally support this Bill. However, I wish the Minister would consider that the UN Security Council resolutions are only one aspect of keeping our national laws consistent with international obligations. And I must, in that sense, ask what is our approach to other treaties and laws that bind us. For instance, Singapore has ratified the Genocide Convention, but this has not been fully incorporated into our national laws.

With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.

I just have a few comments. This Bill could have, on reflection, been introduced earlier perhaps. There have been many acts of terrorism in this world. Over the years, since Singapore became independent and a member of the United Nations, were there not earlier resolutions in the United Nations relating to acts of terrorism or related matters where Singapore had been a participant in the debates, and therefore we could have adopted the resolutions that were passed in the United Nations, as in the present form of legislation in Singapore? If not, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister why this has not been done. Also, how active has been the Singapore Representative to the United Nations, in terms of promoting resolutions to prevent terrorism?

The other point I would like to raise is whether, in the course of the debates in the United Nations - and I am sure there must have been - the definition of "terrorism" was debated and defined. And if there was a proper definition of "terrorism", whether that could be incorporated into our local legislation, so that we know exactly what "terrorism" means. A simple definition of "terrorism" could be one who terrorises, a nation that terrorises or a group that terrorises. So it could be a very wide definition. Perhaps a form of definition would be helpful.

Sir, in a sense, it could be argued that this Bill is being introduced rather urgently because the United States of America, a giant, is involved. The September 11, 2001 tragedy has been responsible, in a sense, for us to introduce this Bill in Parliament. Whilst all of us are very sad and sympathetic to the families whose dear ones have passed away during this incident and others who are affected adversely by this tragedy, we, as parliamentarians, must be seen to be legislating local laws based on consistent principles. And I would submit that our UN Representative should be more active in this regard, not because of the September 11 incident, but any incident relating to such matters affecting terrorism in other parts of the world too, and not just the United States.

There is also a financial provision in the Bill. I would like to seek clarification on this. I am not sure of the exact impact of it. Would the provision in the Banking Act on banking secrecy be involved when this piece of legislation is enacted? In terms of banking secrecy, there is the secrecy not to divulge any form of information relating to bank accounts. Would the authorities now have the powers to investigate and look into the aspect of where finances have been banked into or transferred to, so that acts of terrorism are not just a physical act, but to find out where the finances have come from and are going to, so that terrorism could be minimised in Singapore, the region and the world at large.

With that, Sir, I would support this Bill.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken and I will now respond to their specific comments. I also wish to thank them for their support of the Bill.

First, Mr Simon Tay asked for clarification on clause 2(b) of the Bill, whether this is in any way conferring powers of investigation on non-Singaporean officials. Let me assure him that clause 2(b) is not intended and, in fact, does not empower non-Singaporean law officials to exercise powers of investigation for offences under the regulations which may be made under the Bill. This power is restricted to giving powers of investigations to persons within Singapore. It does not have extra-territorial scope, either for non-Singaporean officials to exercise jurisdiction here or for Singaporeans to exercise jurisdiction in other countries.

In most cases, offences under the Bill will be investigated by the Police. However, we can conceive of situations where it may be necessary to confer powers of investigations on other persons. They may be customs officials, immigration officials or commercial affairs officers. These officers, of course, do have powers of investigation with respect to the Acts under which they have been appointed. But if not for this Bill and the regulations, they may not have powers of investigations for offences under the proposed Bill. That is why we have clause 2(b) of the Bill.

Mr Simon Tay also asked about the process in the UN Security Council, the role of smaller states and so on. Yes, it is true that the permanent five, in reality, are key to most of the decisions of the UN Security Council. But if he is asking whether Singapore and other small states do have a role and whether they are consulted in the process, the answer to that is yes, they have a role. It depends on the kind of ideas and constructive suggestions they bring to bear on either the principle being discussed, in the details of the implementation, or on procedural matters. We have, in the UN, a very hardworking team of officers led by our Permanent Representative, and I think they are doing a very good job in representing Singapore's interests.

When we ask for consultation, it is not because we are a small state. The consultation would be useful for ensuring that whatever decisions that the Security Council takes have as broad-based a support of the UN membership and of the international community.

His third point is that the structure of the Bill is that of an enabling legislation and most of the details will have to be implemented through regulations, and whether this somehow undermines the sovereignty of Parliament. I would like to assure him that this is not so. When we come to questions of implementing UN Security Council resolutions, particularly of the nature of Resolution 1373, often speed and timeliness is of the essence. And as he knows, since he has taught international law, the inadequacy of domestic law cannot be an excuse for failure to perform international obligations. Therefore, because of the breadth of the Security Council's resolutions and because we expect many follow-up of the Security Council, which will require other measures to be taken effectively and promptly by UN members, we cannot anticipate that there will always be timely occasion to come to Parliament to pass legislation through First Reading, Second Reading and Third Reading. So this is the reason why we have to structure the Bill as it is and, as I have mentioned in my main speech, in fact, this is the approach taken by most countries whose legislation we have surveyed. And I guess they too realise the need for speedy, effective and prompt implementation.

Having said that, let me also say that, in a sense, this legislation is unusual in that it is regulation to give effect to the UN Security Council resolutions, but it is not unusual in the sense that in our body of laws, we have many examples where domestic legislation has empowered the Minister to be able to make regulations and rules to give effect to the basic norms set out in the parent legislation.

He has asked, following his first premise, whether we could consult a small group of Members of Parliament. I think this is not really practical in order to be able to give effect to the purposes for which we are enacting this legislation. Let me take the example of UN Resolution 1373. One of the provisions asks for almost effective action to arrest and take other measures with regard to terrorists on the list or organisations under the Executive Order of the United States, which, in a sense, has been adopted by the Security Council's Committee under Resolution 1333. When the UN Security Council does that, it is not a question of us having to consult with the GPC and so on. We have to implement it immediately. So, in that sense, we have no choice. Otherwise, we are in default of UN Security Council's resolutions.

I am sure the Member will understand that this is an obligation on Singapore and all other members of the United Nations. And if we were to tell the Secretary-General or the Chairman of whichever sanctions committee that we are going to hold it up, and we are not going to arrest, or we are not going to take other necessary actions, because we have to consult the GPC - without any disrespect to the GPC - then we may have a situation of having failed to do what we must do. So it is not in any way undermining Members of Parliament. The fact that we have come to Parliament to get this authorisation is, in fact, in keeping with the principle of getting parliamentary approval, as many other countries have done.

He has also raised the issue of the Genocide Convention. His point is that apart from this legislation, have we looked at other obligations we may have in the United Nations, and have we ensured that our domestic laws are adequate to give effect. Let me assure him that we always examine this issue carefully. In other words, if we are committing ourselves to an international obligation, such as conventions and treaties, have we got our domestic legislation adequately in place to be able to give effect to our international obligations? So, as a general answer, let me assure him that it is so.

Specifically, about the Genocide Convention, I can only repeat what I said at the last occasion when, I believe, it was he who also raised this point. We were advised by the Attorney-General's Chambers that there was no mandatory obligation to enact express enabling legislation and that most, if not all, of the requirements under the Genocide Convention could be done through existing legislation and that we could also enact legislation to the Penal Code to give effect to the Genocide Convention. But there is no pressing urgency to do that, and it is a matter that our draftsmen in the Attorney-General's Chambers have on the agenda.

I believe I have answered most of the questions of Mr Simon Tay.

I thank Mr Chandra Mohan also for his support, and he has raised a few questions too. One is: why is it that we did not enact the UN Act earlier; on reflection, we should have anticipated this? Yes, we could have enacted this earlier. But we did not do so because we found that our previous practice had served us well. By that I mean that where we have not been able to give effect to the Security Council's resolutions, we amended legislation as and when the occasion arose. Because there was no pressing urgency to have this kind of enabling legislation. Most of the resolutions give ample time for implementation. And also we found that we were able to implement previous resolutions either through administrative measures or through existing legislation. As and when we need it, we amend other legislation, as I mentioned in my main speech.

But what has happened really is that the scope and nature of UN sanctions have changed recently. And I would say up to the early 1990s, the sanctions were relatively straightforward such as trade and arms embargoes, but the comprehensive nature of sanctions now being implemented by the United Nations Security Council presents a completely new picture and this is why we have decided that the previous system of ad hoc amendment of legislation may not be workable anymore, and that is why we have come to this House for this kind of enabling legislation which will enable us to implement the resolution which is, as you may have seen, very sweeping in nature. It has changed in the sense that time becomes of the essence. You have to implement speedily and report speedily to the Security Council. In most cases now, after the resolution is adopted, a committee is set up, which is loosely referred to as the Sanctions Committee. The members would be asked to report very soon what they have done and what kind of follow-up actions they have taken. So really there is no luxury of time anymore.

He has asked how active we are at the United Nations in proposing resolution on terrorism. It is really not a case of Singapore proposing our own resolutions to the Security Council. It calls for international discussions in various forums, both within as well as outside the UN. Thus, while we are active in the UN Security Council, you would have read in the papers that ASEAN recently had a ministerial meeting on transnational crimes where they had also decided to take specific cooperative measures on terrorism. It is a matter which must be tackled at all fronts, both on the wide global plane at the UN and also outside the UN at the relevant forum, including law enforcement at expert levels where the people are engaged in exchange of information and operational cooperative measures.

He asked about the definition of terrorism. I must say that this is one of the most difficult issues in any discussion on measures against terrorism. It is a difficult issue for the Security Council, for the General Assembly and in any other forum where they are discussing this. The Member was thinking aloud the definition of a terrorist as anyone "who commits terrorism" on a large scale, or something to that effect. Then you would have another nice debate as to what is "terrorism" and what is not terrorism. I think the approach taken by the Security Council was that this issue may have to be tackled at some stage, but you cannot allow this lack of agreement or lack of clarity on the details to prevent international committees getting together and taking a collective action. When the Committee, established under Resolution 1373, gets down to business, they will have to address some specific issues and this will be one of the issues that they will address.

He made the point that Singapore's position at the UN and elsewhere must be to condemn terrorism anywhere and not just terrorism that occurs in the United States. But it has never been our position that we only condemn terrorism which has taken place in the United States. If he had read all the statements made by Singapore on terrorism, on acts committed elsewhere before September 11th or after September 11th, and if he had followed the speeches given, starting from DPM BG Lee's speech at the Forbes, then the Prime Minister's speech at the memorial service, right up to the Prime Minister's speech yesterday, if one thing should be clear to Singaporeans as well as to people outside Singapore, it is that we have been consistent in condemning all forms of terrorism, whoever perpetrates it against whichever country or whichever people it is directed against. This continues to be our firm stand, both within and outside the United Nations.

His final point was about banking secrecy. Let me assure him that whatever is necessary to implement the UN Security Council's resolution to give effect to UN Security Council's resolution on freezing of funds, giving information to the UN on whether funds of terrorists have come to Singapore, if it is not already covered by the relevant amendments to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Act last year, then it would be covered under the new regulation. But we find that the requirements of the UN Security Council's resolution with regard to freezing of assets and so on can be adequately done under the amendments to the MAS legislation. If it is not sufficient, then, of course, other measures may be needed.

I think I have answered all the questions.

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