STATUTES (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL

Column: 326

STATUTES (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL:

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

Sir, this Bill collates a number of minor amendments to several Acts. They are mostly technical amendments, but let me highlight the key ones.

Amendment to the Community Mediation Act

First, the Community Mediation Act. Clause 3 amends section 15 of the Community Mediation Act to enhance the power of a Magistrate to refer complaints to a Community Mediation Centre for mediation.

Column: 327

Section 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for a person seeking redress against another whom he believes has committed an offence, to appear before a Magistrate to make a complaint, called a Magistrate's Complaint. Section 15 of the Community Mediation Act currently empowers the Magistrate to refer appropriate complaints to the Community Mediation Centres for mediation, but only if the disputing parties agree.

The proposed amendment will enable the Magistrate to refer appropriate cases to the Community Mediation Centres, even when both parties do not agree, especially where the cases relate to neighbourly and community-related disputes. This is already the approach adopted by established jurisdictions such as Australia and Canada. We are making this amendment, bearing in mind feedback received from our volunteer mediators, Members of Parliament and members of the public who had experienced such disputes.

As is currently the case, in deciding whether a case should or should not be referred to mediation at the Community Mediation Centres, the Magistrate would bear in mind various factors such as the nature of the dispute, their previous attempts to resolve the matter and the appropriateness of sending the parties to mediation given the facts of the case. The order to attend mediation will only restrict the parties in so far as it relates to process. In other words, the parties are free to decide the outcome of their case when they meet at the mediation table. Hence, no one will be compelled into a settlement. If the mediation is unsuccessful, parties may proceed to have their day in court. But it is good to strengthen our processes to at least have the parties talk it over before an impartial, trained mediator. This way, we hope that more disputes on the ground, especially

Column: 328

those between neighbours, can be settled amicably.

Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code

Many Acts of Parliament have express provisions that allow selected offences under the respective Acts to be made compoundable. Sir, this is in regard to the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code. Such a power allows public authorities the discretion to compound offences where it is not sufficiently serious to warrant prosecution.

A review by Government agencies has identified several Acts that have offences which are suitable for composition, but which do not have the required provisions to allow the offences to be compounded. Clause 4 amends the Criminal Procedure Code to provide a general power to the relevant authorities to make offences compoundable, by specifying the offences through subsidiary legislation. This will obviate the need to amend multiple Acts to insert the power to compound the offences.

The composition amount that an authority may impose under this clause is capped at half of the maximum fine prescribed for the offence, or $2,000, whichever is lower. The power conferred under this clause does not extend to Acts which already have provisions relating to the composition of offences.

Sir, this amendment is part of MinLaw's initiative to encourage regulatory agencies to decriminalise minor offences, especially regulatory ones, and promote the use of non-criminal sanctions. Although the offences where composition may be offered remain as criminal offences, offenders are given the opportunity to avoid prosecution and possible criminal conviction if they pay the composition fine offered by the authorities.

Column: 329

Amendment to the Bankruptcy Act

Next, the Bankruptcy Act. Currently, bankrupts have to notify both the Official Assignee and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) when they change their residential address. Clause 2(a) amends the Bankruptcy Act to deem notice of a change of address to the ICA as notice to the Official Assignee. The Official Assignee can use information from the National Registration Office of the ICA for service of notices on bankrupts. Bankrupts will henceforth no longer need to separately notify the Official Assignee once they have notified the change to the ICA or any Neighbourhood Police Centres or Police Posts.

Clause 2(b) amends the Bankruptcy Act to remove the requirement for the Official Assignee to make annual publications of the list of bankrupts. This is because the Official Assignee now provides an online enquiry service which enables the public to enquire as to the bankruptcy status of individuals.

Miscellaneous amendments

Sir, let me wrap up now by taking the House briefly through the remaining key provisions of the Bill which are in the nature of facilitating better administration of the Acts.

Amendment to the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act

Clause 5 amends paragraph 5(a) Part I of the Fourth Schedule of the Land Transport Authority Act to replace the phrase "in contravention of any written law" with "without the contravention of any written law".

Sir, this is to give effect to the intention of the LTA to pay compensation for the removal, pursuant to LTA's

Column: 330

instructions, of only structures that were legally erected and maintained. The current wording, resulting from a 1997 amendment, creates the impression that LTA compensates the cost of removing structures that were erected and maintained illegally. This was not the intention.

Amendment to the Legal Aid and Advice Act

Clause 6 amends the Legal Aid and Advice Act to remove a reference to the Rent Conciliation and Tenants Compensation Board, which is no longer functioning following the repeal of the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act in the year 2002.

Amendment to the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act

Clause 7 repeals section 4 of the Public Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act which provides for the prohibition of trading in blood. This provision was made redundant when the Human Organ Transplant Act was enacted which also provides for a similar prohibition.

Amendment to the Probate and Administration Act

Clause 8 amends the Probate and Administration Act to replace several references to the Official Assignee with the Public Trustee.

Sir, this is because over the years, administration has become more specialised such that there is now a clear distinction between the functions of the Official Assignee and the Public Trustee even though the two positions are currently held by the same person. The Public Trustee deals mainly with administration of a deceased's estate, whereas the Official Assignee deals with bankruptcy matters. In addition, there is the possibility that if the Official Assignee

Column: 331

handles a deceased person's estate when he is not a bankrupt, the public may get the wrong impression that the deceased was a bankrupt.

Amendment to the Street Works Act

And finally, Sir, clause 9 amends section 32A of the Street Works Act to enable the Land Transport Authority to delegate to authorised officers of the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) the power to take enforcement measures against obstructions on certain footways. URA has agreed to the delegation as it wants to ensure that such footways are kept obstruction-free, so that building linkways remain pedestrian-friendly.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Sir, I rise to support the Bill. But there is a question relating to clause 3 of the Bill which relates to the change in the law on mediation. Mediation usually relates to consensual cases, meaning that both parties must consent to go to the Mediation Centre. The proposal is to change the law relating to that. I have a couple of questions to ask the Senior Minister of State concerning how this amendment would operate.

First of all, what would happen if a hostile complainant refuses to attend a mediation session but insists on the Magistrate taking up the complaint? Secondly, if we allow non-consensual mediation cases to be referred

to CMCs, will there be a sufficient number of mediators to assist in these cases and to take them up? Also, the training for the mediators now relates to how to settle disputes between two consenting parties. Now, of course, they will have a rather different situation where the parties are hostile. Will there be new or improved

Column: 332

training for these mediators to cope with such situations?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, first of all, let me clarify that it is not all the cases that will be sent for mediation before the community mediators. Having worked the system for six years, the Magistrates have gleaned enough experience to know, bearing in mind certain factors like the nature of the dispute, the stance taken by the parties, the attitude of the parties, whether or not this case ought to go for community mediation. I think that is an important point. It is with the hindsight and experience of all these years that we have decided to move.

Like I have said, the parties are not forced into a settlement. What they only need to do is attend the mediation. Really, I do not see a situation where a party who is in dispute will refuse to go for mediation because, if he does so, he will be in contempt of court. It is an order of the court for them to go for mediation. All the parties need to do is go for mediation. No one is forced into a settlement. They can still come back to the court after that and say, "We have had a day before the mediator. Now, please settle the dispute."

But what is more important is that we have decided to move now in this way because of feedback from the ground. Many of our volunteer mediators in fact tell us that it is good to get the parties to at least talk. Sometimes, one party may be reticent or not prepared to do so. But if he is persuaded to do it, just talking through - some of these disputes, like I have said, not all and sundry but those relating to neighbours fighting, relational disputes between family members - even if they cannot be mediated, the opportunity just to air their grievances will help the parties understand the problem better.

Column: 333

Of course, that also is related to Prof. Chin's second point, which is the key role played by mediators. I am very happy to report to this House that over these five or six years, we have now trained a group of very committed and dedicated mediators, many of whom are grassroots leaders of Members of this House. There are about 160 of them. Many of them are very excited about what they are doing. We have also made their roles more fulfilling because we have given them some sort of career upgrading. So, we have appointed 60 of them as Master Mediators, those who have done a certain number of mediations and have done very well.

Sir, let me assure the House that even though the case load will increase, the work that the CMC now is doing within the entire framework of settling disputes in Singapore will not be adversely affected by the increased workload. On the contrary, I should think that CMCs will continue to make Singapore a more harmonious society.

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.