Hansard, 1969-06-12

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [11th June, 1969], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 2.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, the business of government is to ensure that the rule of law must be seen to prevail, and not thwarted. This means that the administration of justice is carried out fairly and justly, and that the law does take its course. When making changes to existing practice, we have to ask ourselves whether the change we are introducing will be for the better. Having spent a decade in the practice of the law, with some experience in the criminal courts, and another decade in government having to provide for the machinery of justice, the police and their investigations, public prosecutors and the courts, I have little doubt that this is a change which in our circumstances will ensure that justice is the more likely to be done, and seen to be done. If three High Court Judges cannot decide on questions of fact better than seven random jurymen, then grievous harm is being done every day. Single Judges and single Magistrates have been, and are deciding questions of fact, both in civil and criminal cases. Every day single Judges and single Magistrates make their decisions after findings on questions of fact on the evidence of witnesses under examination-in-chief and cross examination. Sometimes they intervene to pose questions. Sometimes documents and exhibits are brought before them. I have little doubt that they are the more likely to arrive at the truth as against a jury of laymen. The jury system may work in Singapore, if our jurors do not feel overwhelmed with the responsibility of having to find a man guilty, when they know that this means a death sentence. It also requires Judges who have complete command of their courts, and are sufficiently subtle and skilful to get juries to arrive at the right verdict through a judicious choice of words which cannot be attacked on appeal. Even in England, the present Lord Chief Justice has had occasion in recent years to make a number of caustic comments on the jury system. One can always fall back on Blackstone in the eighteenth century, and several English Judges of the present century to proclaim the virtues of the Anglo-Saxon method of jury trial. But, even in England from the requirement of unanimous verdict for a conviction, it is now only necessary to get a majority. Also not so long ago in England juries were called upon to decide questions of fact even in civil cases, like actions for libel. Now they have been abolished. The administration of justice has to be kept apace and abreast with the times. And the reputation of the jury for divine discernment is now much tarnished. We have seen in Singapore several miscarriages of justice in the past few years. In one trial for murder recently, a trial that should have taken five days dragged on for over 30 days as Judge and prosecutor leant over backwards to ensure the appearance of justice being manifestly done. In my view, it was overdone. Every visiting psychiatrist was called to give evidence, ending with the majority of jurymen being so impressed or confused that a majority of the jury reduced the charge of murder to a conviction for culpable homicide. The time has come to put this right. Western Europe is not uncivilised. They too have the rule of law, although more Roman law than Anglo-Saxon law. The French, Germans, Italians, and Dutch do not have juries for civil or criminal trials. No jurist or student of jurisprudence has been reckless enough to say that justice is not being done in these countries. The question some lawyers unconsciously frame is: Before whom does an accused person, who can pay for a good advocate, stand a more sporting chance of being acquitted, three High Court Judges or a jury of seven? I suggest that as legislators concerned with the administration of justice, we are not interested in this question. The question that we in this House must ask is: Are three Judges more likely to do justice than seven men chosen at random to serve on a jury? I think we know the answer to this. I support the Second Reading of this Bill. 2.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday we heard the Minister for Law and National Development and my colleagues the Member for Bukit Panjang and the Member for Serangoon Gardens expressing their views as well as their concern about certain portions of the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill. Today we had the opportunity of listening to the Prime Minister himself. All these four Members are from the legal profession and I have no doubt that they are fully conversant with and convinced of what they have expressed in this House. They have quoted authoritative opinions in support of their views. We are also aware that several members of the legal profession in Singapore and the Bar Committee have raised, to quote the Minister for Law, "vociferous objections" to the Bill. Sir, may I express some of the misgivings I have as a layman who has no connection whatsoever with the legal profession. Sir, not too long ago, a Member of Parliament (a colourful personality who is no more with us) in a friendly neighbouring country when referring to another Member of Parliament's interpretation of some law, pointedly stated that just as a person who prescribes medicine without medical qualifications is termed a "quack", similarly, a man without legal training who presumes to analyse legal points is termed a "lawyer burok". At the risk of being disparaged in a similar manner, I feel it is my duty to express the genuine misgivings that the ordinary people may have in regard to this Bill. Sir, the Minister, while outlining the need for the introduction of the Bill, has mentioned that our experiences in the recent past have shown the unreliability of the system of trial by jury where persons who should have been convicted had instead been acquitted. Sir, a pertinent question is, is it solely because this aspect of administration of justice has been left in the hands of seven laymen? Or can it not be, as the Prime Minister once suggested when advocating more equitable salaries for our legal officers in the Government service, that a number of criminals are roaming the streets because of the unrealistic salaries for legal officers which have been responsible for effecting a brain drain from Government service into private practice, leaving, as it were, the Attorney-General's Chambers with the second best? Even though the position may have shown improvement recently, the few good legal officers in the legal service are not able to cope with the number of criminal cases on their hands. It stands to reason that a Deputy Public Prosecutor who has to handle several cases at one and the same time cannot devote the same amount of time and attention as opposing counsel may be able to do in a particular case. Mr Speaker, Sir, when speaking on this Bill, we must not forget that in many countries the trend of public opinion is against capital punishment and this Bill is only applicable to cases in respect of capital offences. The effect of this Bill is tantamount to the facilitation of capital punishment in Singapore. The point I wish to make is that just as there are authorities and learned opinions which have been cited in this House by the proponents of the Bill in favour of abolition of trial by jury, there are equally authoritative and learned opinions to the effect that capital punishment is not a solution to the problem of criminal and anti-social behaviour. Sir, let me now refer to the practical difficulties that we may have to face if this Bill becomes law. We have known in practice in all criminal cases where the punishment of death is authorised by law, that the trial may spread over a number of days and that this Bill, when it becomes law, will have the effect of causing not one but three Judges to be tied up during the course of the trial. Knowing that there is a shortage of High Court Judges at this juncture, it would appear that Singapore can ill afford the luxury of having three Judges to be fully occupied with one trial. Even if we increase the number of Judges, I fear that the Bill will bring about a long back-log of court cases and consequently justice could not be meted out as expeditiously as it should be. Let me now refer to clause 3 of the Bill which seeks to amend Chapter 21, section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subsection (3) of the proposed section 178 reads as follows: 'If the three Judges of the High Court are unable to arrive at a decision either unanimously or by majority, the court may acquit the accused or discharge him, such discharge not amounting to an acquittal; in either case the accused may be tried before another court consisting of three Judges of the High Court other than those who had tried him previously.' Sir, if three learned Judges cannot arrive at a decision, then I suggest that some doubts have been raised and I feel the case deserves an acquittal, and not another trial before another court, consisting of three Judges of the High Court other than those who had tried him previously. Sir, what happens if the second court is also unable to arrive at a decision either unanimously or by majority? I feel that an important accepted principle is being ignored, namely, that no person should be placed in peril of his life twice. I would have thought that the replacement of a jury of seven laymen by a panel of three Judges who represent the top of the legal profession would have further obviated the necessity of a second trial. Sir, it is gratifying to know that the Bill is going to a Select Committee and I have no doubt that the Committee, as the Minister has given the assurance, will give every consideration to the constructive suggestions and objections raised by any interested party. 2.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is significant that out of the 58 Members of Parliament in this House, only five Members spoke on this Bill, and of these five, four are lawyers. The interest shown in this House in the Bill reflects the interest shown outside the House. The rumblings and grumbling heard outside this House are confined mainly to some members of the legal profession who, as I said yesterday, practise mostly in the criminal courts. We have hardly heard a groan or even a squeak against this Bill from the man in the street. Sir, when lawyers get together and protest and begin to shout, "The jury is the lamp of freedom. What is this Government doing? Ah, they are taking the jury away;" some people begin to sit up, some prick up their ears and listen, and even some students begin to get restless. Fortunately, Sir, not many people outside this House have even shown the slightest interest in retaining the jury system. Let us examine more closely this catchy phrase "the jury is the lamp of freedom". What is this freedom? Whose freedom is it? Is it the freedom to kill, or kidnap and hold to ransom and sometimes kill in the process? Is it the freedom to carry firearms with impunity? Or is it the freedom of lawyers, whilst defending an accused person on a capital charge, to address and sway a jury? As you well know, Sir, no such freedom exists. It is not even a right. The fundamental rights of liberty, like the liberty of a person, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, are enshrined in our Constitution. Members will know that in order to make this Bill law, there is no need to amend the Constitution. So to speak of the jury as the lamp of freedom is, with the greatest respect, Sir, in the context of our society, pure and utter balderdash. Trial by jury is, therefore, a mere privilege -- a privilege that the law has up to now accorded accused persons (who if convicted are liable to be sentenced to death) to be tried by a jury; a privilege the law has accorded lawyers defending such accused persons to address and perhaps sway a jury. The time has come for this privilege to be taken away. Perhaps I should explain for the benefit of some Members of this House that in our courts today, two types of cases are heard - civil and criminal cases. Civil cases in Singapore have never at any time been heard by a jury. Today, as far as criminal cases are concerned, it is only in cases in the High Court where accused persons are charged with offences that may lead, on conviction, to the imposition of capital punishment, that juries are required. On the average, out of the thousands of cases heard every year in the High Court and the subordinate courts, only about one dozen cases are cases which are tried with a Judge and a jury. This Bill, when enforced, will result in the end of jury trials for these types of cases. In place of the jury, there will be three Judges. What is the main objection to a trial by three Judges? I think it is pretty obvious that three Judges can decide questions of law and even questions of fact better than seven laymen. It has been faintly suggested that the Government can, and the Government may, influence the Judges. Sir, does any reasonable person believe that this Government, whatever its defects and whatever its shortcomings, would stoop so low as to influence our Judges by pressuring them into convicting alleged murderers or kidnappers? I need not assure the House that we have far better things to do. May I also remind the House of Article 125 of the Constitution which provides for the protection of Judges. This is Article 125 of the Federal Constitution which was retained by us when we passed the independence Act in December, 1965. Sir, this Article is being re-enacted in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill now before the House. I refer to clause 2 of this Bill which seeks to enact an Article 52F Clause (3) of this new Article reads: 'If the Prime Minister, or the Chief Justice after consulting the Prime Minister, represents to the President that a Judge of the Supreme Court ought to be removed on the ground of misbehaviour or of inability, from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause, to properly discharge the functions of his office, the President shall appoint a tribunal in accordance with clause (4) of this Article and shall refer that representation to it, and may on the recommendation of the tribunal remove the Judge from office.' Clause (4) of this new Article goes on to say: 'The tribunal shall consist of not less than five persons who hold or have held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court in Singapore, or, if it appears to the President expedient to make such an appointment, persons who hold or have held equivalent office in any part of the Commonwealth, and the tribunal shall be presided over by the member first in the following order, namely, the Chief Justices...' Sir, I am merely bringing the attention of Members to this clause to show that the Judges, once appointed, are firmly seated in their office and practically irremovable. In conclusion, I will deal briefly with the suggestion of the Member for Bukit Panjang, which was also touched upon by the Member for Telok Blangah, that the proposed subsection (3) of the new section 178 should be deleted. I informed the House yesterday that it is the intention of Government to send this Bill to Select Committee where representations may be made in writing and representors heard in person if they so desire. When the Bill is taken clause by clause in Committee, every consideration will be given to the Members' suggestion and to any other representations that we may receive. Indeed, Sir, now that only members of one Party have been elected to represent the people of Singapore, representations from the public to Select Committee on this and on any Bill are most welcome. Sir, can I also just touch upon one more point which was raised by the Member for Telok Blangah who was worried about the number of Judges? He said we might require six or more Judges. May I say at this stage that there is no difficulty in appointing more Judges. At the moment, we are short because two Judges, Mr Justice Buttrose and Mr Justice Ambrose, left recently and no one has been appointed since. I do not appoint Judges but I can assure the House that the matter is well being looked after and more Judges will be appointed very soon.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection." [Mr Barker].

Order for Second Reading read. 3.02 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill now before the House introduces two amendments to the Singapore Constitution. Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to introduce a new Part A of the Constitution, and as Members will see it makes provision for the Judiciary. This branch of Government is missing from the Singapore Constitution in its original form because the Order in Council setting out the Constitution envisaged Singapore as a state within the Federation of Malaysia, the judicial power was a Federal matter and was therefore set out in the Federal Constitution. Now that we have become independent on our own, this obvious hiatus in our Constitution is being provided for. This amendment comes at an appropriate moment accompanying the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill which would set out in detail the judicial structure in Singapore. In so far as the Judiciary is a separate branch of Government, it has to be set out separately and enacted in this Part of the Constitution. Clause 3 of the Bill sets out more radical provisions. The new Part IVa of the Constitution deals with the setting up of the Presidential Council. Hon. Members will remember that amongst the various suggestions made by the Wee Chong Jin Report on constitutional provisions for the protection of minority rights in the Republic was this recommendation, namely, the setting up of a Council of State to act as an extra Parliamentary safeguard for the protection of minority rights. Members will also recall the speech I made to this House on the Constitutional Report on 21st December, 1966, when I informed the House that among the various recommendations in regard to the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual and the manner in which various provisions of the Constitution ought to be entrenched, the Government would agree with this recommendation of a Council of State. I had also told the House that although we would differ in detail, in principle we agreed to such a Council being established. Instead of calling this Council the "Council of State", the Government has decided to name it the "Presidential Council", a term we consider more suitable and more appropriate. The Council would consist of a Chairman and ten permanent members appointed for life and ten other members appointed for various periods up to a maximum of three years. As set out in the Explanatory Note, the functions of the Council will be principally to consider and report on matters affecting persons of any racial or religious community in Singapore as may be referred to it by Parliament or by the Government. The Council is also to examine all Bills and subsidiary legislation to ensure that no provisions in our laws would result in unfair discrimination against or otherwise violate any fundamental liberties of the individual set out in our Constitution. It has been argued by some that such a chamber as the Presidential Council comprising non-elected members would be a derogation of the supremacy of Parliament. We have been careful to ensure that this will not be so. In the normal course of events, the Council can only delay the passage of a Bill for s period of one month. But as Members will appreciate, if the Presidential Council is to play its role as a checkpoint to safeguard the rights of the individual, it must have certain powers. Although Members of the Government may be allowed to attend meetings of the Council and to take part in its deliberations, they will not join in reaching its decisions. The functions of the Council will not be confined solely to the scrutiny of Bills enacted by Parliament. Subsidiary legislation as may be made under the authority of an Act of Parliament would come within the purview of the Council, to see whether a particular provision even in subsidiary legislation amounts to a "differentiating measure" or in any other way violate the fundamental liberties of the subject. Whilst it has no power to veto any legislation and so diminish the supremacy of our elected legislature, it does draw public attention to any proposal which it considers discriminatory of any minority group. So any government of the day has to consider the odium it would incur publicly for enforcing majority rule to the disadvantage of a minority, although this is normal democratic practice.

3.12 p.m. However, certain Bills must of necessity be excluded from the purview of the Council such as Money Bills or indeed any Bill certified by the Prime Minister to be so urgent that it would not be in the public interest to delay its enactment. These and similar provisions do not seriously affect the supremacy of Parliament. It is hoped that far from derogating from the supremacy of Parliament, members of the Council will carry out their functions in the spirit and intendment of this Bill, namely, to assist Parliament in its consideration of Acts of Parliament and ensure that such Acts or other enactments made under the authority of Acts of Parliament are fair and undiscriminating in their effects to all the various peoples in our Republic. In this way it is the hope that confidence and a sense of security and a sense of more than fair play will be engendered throughout the community. Sir, in view of the considerable public interest in this Bill, I intend to send it to a Select Committee. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.15 p.m.

Sir, I rise to speak on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, a subject of compelling concern to all those, within and without Parliament, who believe that a multi-racial society, with a diversity of cultures, can be organized on a rational basis that denies no race equal opportunities in life. We are not the only multi-racial nation on earth, and the Government is certainly not the first government faced with the all-important problem of finding an appropriate national framework by which multifarious races can live and work together in peace and harmony, respect and tolerate each other's differences and share, at the same time, an identity of nationhood. To take some liberty with a proverbial expression, the political harvests which a nation reaps depend on the way in which it has sowed the seeds of nationhood on ground fertile for politics along communal lines. As a historian by profession, I would like to quote history - history is replete with examples of violent political harvests that can only sow seeds of further bloody discord. In examining the evolution of the present constitutional amendment for the creation of a Presidential Council, I note that the Constitutional Commission of 1966 made the following recommendation, and I quote page 4, paragraph 16, of its Report: 'We recommend the creation of a non-elected advisory body to be called "the Council of State" with a small membership, not subject to dissolution but renewing itself at regular intervals by the retirement and replacement of a proportion of its members in rotation. The members should be appointed by the President after consultation with the Prime Minister but in the President's discretion from amongst able, mature citizens irrespective of race, colour or creed who have attained eminence or responsible positions in their respective walks of life but who are not members of any political party. We believe such a body can play an effective and vital part in the affairs of the nation in many ways. It will be able in its debates to focus the attention of the public on any matter originating from Parliament which may adversely affect the interests of any minority group. It will also be able to serve as an additional check on new legislation and this would be particularly useful on matters of great public importance and on matters which might affect the minorities. Also, it will be able, especially where there is no responsible or effective Opposition in Parliament, to put forward where it considers it necessary in the public interest to do so, constructive and well-informed criticism or amendments of measures proposed in Parliament.'. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it will be recalled that nowhere in the Constitutional Commission Report did it propose that the interests of the minority races in Singapore be secured or protected in the form of constitutional entrenchment of minority rights over and above those enjoyed by the majority race. Indeed, it considered minority representation in Parliament or in an Upper House, or proportional representation, as constitutional measures that would defeat their very objective and intensify politics along communal lines. The Constitutional Commission believed, and I am of the view that history will vindicate its belief, that minority interests would be best secured and protected if minority groups enjoyed the same fundamental rights as the majority race. Its belief and faith in a non-racial Constitution of Singapore evidently was derived from the political foresight and common sense of its members, and reflected their belief that the various races in Singapore were increasingly aware that (and I quote page 3, paragraph 10 of the Report): 'their future and the future of the nation lies in a non-racial approach to all problems under a form of government which would enable the growth of a united, multi-racial, free and democratic nation in which all its citizens have equal rights and equal opportunities.' On 27th August, 1966, the Commission presented its Report to the President. The Report was tabled in this Parliament in December 1966 and debated in March 1967. Most of the recommendations of the Commission were accepted by the Government, and in many others the Government accepted the principle but not the details. Sir, slightly more than two years have elapsed between the last debate on the Report of the Constitutional Commission and the present Reading of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, and the public has adequate time to digest and ingest the Report and the basic views of the Government on it. In the interim, the present Government had its mandate to govern renewed, and had, to the astonishment of the world and to its own political embarrassment, won every single parliamentary seat. I attach some special significance to this, for in a state predominantly Chinese in racial composition, neither the extreme right nor left Chinese parties had wanted to test their strength with a multi-racial party, leaving it an almost uncontested arena to assume power for a third time in succession. The Constitutional Commission of 1966 in retrospect had not misjudged the political mood of the races in Singapore. The proposed Presidential Council reflects the intention, the purpose, and the spirit of the Council of State recommended by the Constitutional Commission. As recommended, it is an advisory body, and leaves untouched the present unicameral legislature. It also does not infringe upon the responsibilities of Parliament. Sir, it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy that the supremacy of Parliament remains paramount. In my opinion, there is nothing in the proposed Presidential Council that undermines this principle. It is correct that the Presidential Council shall only be empowered to examine the Bills after the elected representatives of the people have studied, debated and passed them, for I regard intervention of the Council before the final Reading as encroachment upon the responsibilities and privileges of Parliament. To allow the Presidential Council to intervene at any earlier stage of parliamentary Reading of the Bills is to permit it to exercise an influence in the legislature, at the time that the Members Of Parliament should be sensitive to public opinion and form their own independent judgment as to what parliamentary measures will be for the public good and supportable by the electorate. The Presidential Council's report of any Bill or subsidiary legislation is advisory in character, and it is not mandatory on the part of Parliament to accept it, and can be over-ridden if a two-thirds majority of parliamentary Members so decide. However, I should imagine no Parliament can lightly disregard or dismiss the view of the Presidential Council unless there be over-riding reasons for not acting on its advice. The two-thirds majority rule is an adequate safeguard against any infringement of the supremacy of Parliament, at the same time against disrespect of the Presidential Council. I think it has been both consistent with parliamentary principles and the proper functioning of the Presidential Council that its proceedings be conducted in private. Privacy of proceedings safeguards its members from the intimidating pressure of communal public opinion as well as removes any possibility of playing to the communal gallery. As regards its lack of right to hear objectors or examine witnesses, I am of the view that this will not impair the efficiency and efficacy of the Presidential Council. The right to hear objectors or witnesses rightly belongs to Parliament, either in the chambers of Select Committees or parliamentary commissions of inquiry. There is criticism from many quarters that there should be an Opposition to the present Government. The Constitutional Commission of 1966 had reported that the Council of State might act as a check on Parliament in an advisory manner in the absence of responsible or effective Opposition. It is, in my view, correct that there is no possibility of the proposed Presidential Council developing in a way that might give substance to such a view of its function. An Opposition is regarded as a desirable factor that keeps the parliamentary system alive, but the lack of it does not mean the destruction of the essence of democracy. For in the democratic process, the electorate can collectively decide to vote a political party entirely out of Parliament, as had happened to the Singapore Alliance in 1963. Equally, it can entirely vote a political party to all the seats in Parliament - this happened to us in 1968.

3.27 p.m. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have never said that there should be no Opposition in Parliament. But we cannot molly-coddle an Opposition into existence, directly or indirectly, for this will be against the national survival of Singapore. There is only one route to Parliament, and that is by way of elections. The road to Parliament is raw and rough, not for those who want political glamour the easy way. Only those with the will to succeed, sustained by tenacity of purpose and, hopefully, integrity of intentions, will eventually make the grade. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is an organized Opposition in Singapore, a fact some choose to ignore, but it has decided to pursue the path of extra-parliamentary Opposition, as some of my parliamentary colleagues had vividly found when their branch headquarters were attacked. Mr Speaker, Sir, the multi-racialism which this Parliament stands for requires time before its values, beliefs, and practices become irrevocably institutionalized. No constitution or constitutional amendments of any kind, however ingeniously devised by the wisest men on earth, can guarantee that a constitution will survive the turbulent realities of politics. No constitution can guarantee that minority interests will not suffer or that the majority will not exercise its will in a discriminating way. There is a popular mystique about the sanctity and inviolability of a constitution. This is true of those countries where democratic institutions have evolved over a long period of history, and the political values of democracy are firmly a part of the cultural traditions of the people. Unfortunately, post-war history is abundant with evidence that democratic constitutions by themselves do not make for democratic processes nor ensure their own survival. In the last analysis, all depends on the people who participate in politics - their outlook and their beliefs. If this is true of democracy, it is even more so for any constitutional provision for minority interests. Ultimately, the greatest safeguard for minority interest in Singapore lies not in any constitutional provision but in the continued election of people to Parliament who believe in and practise multi-racialism. Mr Speaker, Sir, we in this Parliament believe in multi-racialism, and what Singapore requires primarily is confidence that multi-racialism can work within the context of the stresses and strains of Southeast Asia, it is our duty and the duty of those who share our belief to prove to the people that the multi-racial system in Singapore can work as well as establish for our Republic a viable and enduring political identity. On our conduct as a political party, and on our administration as a government will the minority and the majority races judge us as to our multi-racialism. The existence of multi-racial Singapore is a daily referendum, and we have to win it every day. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Constitution (Amendment) Bill as the constitutional expression of our declared faith in an equal multi-racial society, and our unequivocal intention to give substance and meaning to a nation in which all are equal regardless of differences of race, language, culture and religion. 3.30 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, especially in regard to the establishment of a Presidential Council. I would like to congratulate the Minister on this, because the establishment of a Presidential Council is in line with the recommendation of the Constitutional Commission of 1966. Once again the Government has demonstrated that it intends to carry out whatever it has promised to do. Mr Speaker, although we have been independent for only four years, the democratic system has worked very successfully in our country. This is due to the fact that, firstly, we have an efficient and honest government; secondly, our multi-racial society is accustomed to democratic practices. This can be seen in the last few elections held. I feel that the various clauses in the Bill are appropriate. One of the provisions in the Bill stipulates that the Council should not take more than one month to examine a Bill passed by Parliament. This will ensure that all Bills passed by Parliament will be implemented smoothly. However, I would like to offer two points for the consideration of the Minister. One is about the appointment of members to the Presidential Council. Secondly, the composition of the members of the Presidential Council must be multi-racial, 1 hope we can appoint people who have extensive social experience, and who are impartial and patriotic. I hope the Minister will pay attention to these points because the task of the Council is to look after the interests and rights of the minorities in Singapore. 3.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the multiracial texture of our society gives the Presidential Council a distinct role to play, but it is my feeling that this would depend ultimately on the composition of the Council. It is important to realise that one of the functions of the Council is to act as a body of constitutional interpretation, because, if I am not mistaken, Sir, the Bill before the House describes the functions of this proposed Council as being, first, advising Parliament on matters affecting minority rights and, second, drawing attention to Bills and statutory legislation which, in the eyes of the Council, appear to be inconsistent with the Constitution or with the fundamental liberties of the individual. In respect of the second function of the Council, that is, to advise Parliament that certain legislation when in operation will be inconsistent with the Constitution or the fundamental liberties of the individual, this will require of the Council an expertise which is primarily legal, particularly an expertise in constitutional interpretation. We can say that such kind of expertise will obviously be lodged in very mature members of the legal profession, namely, the Chief Justice and Puisne Judges. At this stage, perhaps I can refer the House to certain statements made by the Minister for Law and National Development when the Report of the Constitutional Commission was tabled before this House in 1966, and reported in Hansard, Volume 25, No. 14. The Minister for Law and National Development did suggest that perhaps eminent people like ex-Chief Ministers. Chief Justices and Puisne Judges could constitute such a Council. I wonder whether this will make the Council operate in the way that is obviously intended. Should such eminent people be appointed to this Council, they would be in an embarrassing position when legislation which is suspected of being inconsistent with the Constitution or the fundamental liberties of the individual is contested in the High Court for interpretation after the Council had decided unanimously or by a majority to submit an adverse report thereon to Parliament, and Parliament had thereafter overridden such adverse report by a two-thirds majority. Of course, this will only arise if there is such a spate of proceedings for constitutional interpretation in the High Court that we cannot avoid having the same Judges who had been involved in the deliberation on this legislation also taking part in the High Court proceedings. I am sure that the Minister is quite aware of this possibility, but if he will clarify this point, perhaps it might assist the House. Secondly, I might ask, why is it that a two-thirds majority is required under the Bill to over- ride an adverse report from the Presidential Council? It appears that this would reflect a certain amount of consensus on the part of the Council. But this may raise another problem, for it may be said that such a two-thirds majority over-riding an adverse report from the Council is tantamount to an amendment of the Constitution. By our Constitution we need only an ordinary majority to amend it. I would not be able to answer this question. Would a two-thirds majority of the House over-riding an adverse report from the Presidential Council amount to an amendment of the Constitution? If it does mean an amendment to the Constitution, then, of course, to a certain extent, I agree with the opinion voiced outside that perhaps it might jeopardise the individuals who would not be able to contest this legislation in the High Court. There is one other point which can perhaps be clarified by the Minister. The Bill that is before the House specifically excludes the consideration of evidence by witnesses and individuals by the Council. But what if the Council wish to consider written representations from any source? Would it be permitted to do this? These are points which perhaps the Minister could clarify. 3.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I too have to seek the Minister's indulgence in asking one pertinent question for clarification. Under the Constitution (Amendment) Bill - at page 2 -it is provided in clause (2) of the new Article 52B that temporary High Court Judges can be appointed. Can these temporary High Court Judges hear criminal cases where the penalty is death? If so, do they have the protection provided under the new Article 52F in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill? 3.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, may I remind Members that this is not Question Time? Apparently all four Members who spoke on the Bill support it not only in principle but in detail. The Member for Sembawang even congratulates me. But then he adds a rider to the effect that we had better be careful whom we appoint to the Presidential Council. The Member for Serangoon Gardens has raised several pertinent points. He is worried about the expertise that would be required -- legal expertise in constitutional interpretation probably of documents of the law which would be required of its members. He is afraid that some of our Judges might be embarrassed should they be party to a decision of the Presidential Council which is over-ruled by a two-thirds, majority in this House; the same Judge having perhaps to decide the same point which may be an issue in the High Court. Sir, perhaps to set the worries of the Members at rest, it would be best for me to refer again to my speech in this House on 21st December, 1966. I quote from Hansard, Vol. 25. No. 14, col 1055: 'Membership of this Council ... would be of two types -

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved. "That this Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection."-[Mr Barker].

Order. I propose to take the suspension now and I will take the Chair again at fifteen minutes past four o'clock. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.55 p.m. until 4.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 4.15 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill now before the House, as its very name suggests, provides a proper basis for the administration of justice in our Courts which should really have been introduced soon after we left Malaysia. Unfortunately, the many and varied Problems which we had to deal with upon leaving Malaysia had forced us to continue with the existing system of administration of justice until the present day. All that the Bill purports to do is to set out logically the consequences that flow from our becoming independent on our own with an independent system of administration of justice separate from the system that was introduced while we were part of Malaysia and which had since continued in use. Such anachronistic references to the Federal Court of Appeal, for example, would be done away with. The Supreme Court now consists of the Court of Appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal and the High Court. The Bill generally does no more than to revert to the position obtaining before we joined Malaysia. The powers of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court are the same as heretofore, before we joined Malaysia and after we left Malaysia. There are some minor amendments to the law which can be regarded as technical and which generally relate to drafting technique. Apart from these minor changes, there is the introduction of a new provision in Part VII which deals with miscellaneous matters. This new section empowers the High Court to declare any person who is habitually and persistently and without any reasonable cause instituting legal proceedings as a vexatious litigant, whereupon such person may be prevented from instituting legal proceedings without first obtaining the leave of the High Court. Such application to the High Court to have a person declared a vexatious litigant can only be made by the Attorney-General. Needless to say, the Bill would be very welcome by all who practise the law as well as those who administer it. One could say, therefore, that this Bill has been long overdue and would set right on a proper basis the administration of justice in our Courts. No more have the records of appeal for the purposes of conformity with the existing law to be sent up to the Registry of the Federal Court in Kuala Lumpur as it is even now being done. The Court would carry on its proceedings in the same manner but without all the anachronistic carry-over of a system which prevailed when we were a state of the Federation. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. Committee on a date to be fixed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill seeks to prohibit unauthorised import and possession of a group of medicinal substances which are generally referred to as stimulants, appetite suppressants, and hallucinogenic drugs. Members will remember that when Parliament sat on the 16th of December, 1966, the then Member for River Valley (Mr Lim Cheng Lock) expressed concern over the abuse of "pep pills" which he found was available to members of the public from unauthorised sellers and requested my predecessor to look into the matter. To put the record straight, I should point out that the import and sale of "amphetamines and similar substances" popularly referred to as "pep pills" have been controlled under the provisions of the Poisons Ordinance over the past two decades. Since 1961 the control was tightened by making the substance available only on prescriptions issued by medical practitioners. The abuse to which the Member for River Valley drew attention is a recent phenomenon in Singapore, following world-wide publicity given in the daily press of the abuse of these drugs in metropolitan areas of the developed countries, particularly in Japan and the United States of America, it is to be regretted that some of our students in institutions of higher learning have resorted to the use of these drugs. The appetite suppressant drugs have similar properties to the amphetamines and are in demand for weight reducing purposes. These include Preludin, Apisate, Pre-Sate and several others. Mescaline and LSD are hallucinogenic substances which are available for research. I am advised that all the drugs listed in the Schedule to the Act are liable to habituation and persons taking them become increasingly dependent on them. The reasons for taking the drugs in the first instance are depression, fatigue, boredom, obesity, anxiety or premature ejaculation. Some have taken them for "kicks". But, sad to say, resort to these drugs soon becomes a habit. Addiction with its tragic train then follows. Persons "hooked on", to use a colloquial term, these drugs are excitable, unstable, aggressive and disorientated. To combat sleeplessness, some persons resort to sleeping pills with further deterioration of their health leading to psychosis. Though abuse of these drugs in Singapore has not developed into a serious problem. Members will, no doubt, agree with me that prevention is better than cure. In fact, we in Singapore are in an extremely vulnerable position since we not only have a young population but also we are a big city which is also one of the big ports of the world. I cannot therefore over-emphasise the importance of doing everything in our power to guard our youths from the tragedies of drug addiction which is now quite prevalent in other parts of the world. We just cannot afford to allow our youths to resort to drugs if we are to achieve our fundamental objective of building a strong and rugged generation that is healthy both in mind and body. The provisions of the Poisons Ordinance are inadequate in that possession, unless "for sale", is not an offence and that power of arrest at sight of persons in possession of drugs is not provided for. These drugs are not "narcotics" which precludes their inclusion under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. On these grounds, it was decided to frame this Bill, which is based on a similar United Kingdom legislation introduced in 1964. The advice of the Poisons Advisory Committee, consisting of doctors and pharmacists and others in Government and the University, was sought and the Committee recommended control similar to that exercised over narcotics under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap. 137). It will be noticed that the medically-supervised use and possession of these drugs is allowed for and there is no intention of restricting the legitimate use of these substances to treat patients. However, one of the ways in which these drugs may get into the hands of addicts is through over-prescribing, as has been noted in countries where there is widespread abuse. It is hoped that persons authorised to supply these drugs, mainly doctors, will maintain adequate control over these drugs and prescribe them in limited amounts to meet the therapeutic needs of their patients only. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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.-[Mr Chua Sian Chin]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed."-[Mr Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six minutes to Five o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed.