Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Let me say, at the outset, Sir, that the incidence of firearm robbery cases today is low. There were nine firearm robbery cases in 1992 - a drop from the 174 cases reported 20 years ago in 1973. So Members may be wondering why then is this Bill being moved. Let me explain. The Police are extremely concerned over regional trends which show a marked increase in the use of firearms in the commission of crimes and an upsurge in the flow of smuggled arms across borders. Members are probably aware of the crime situation in the United States and the easy availability of arms there. But they may not know that in our region itself, countries are also experiencing a very big rise in violent crimes involving the use of firearms. For example, in China, the authorities are alarmed at the increase in murder, robbery and kidnapping cases in recent years involving the use of firearms and have taken measures to counter this rise. A related phenomenon is the increasing trade in black-market arms, most of which are being smuggled into the various countries in the region. In Taiwan, in 1992 alone, a total of 6,377 units of arms, including rifles, handguns, imitation arms, were recovered by the authorities - more than a four-fold increase from the number recovered in 1991. And our closest neighbour, Malaysia, which has similar firearm laws as Singapore, has not been spared. Over the past five years, there have been almost 3,500 firearm offences in Malaysia, about 16 times that of Singapore, calculated on a per capita basis. The incidence of firearm robberies, despite stringent enforcement by the Malaysian Police, remains high. In Malaysia, as with China, an important factor contributing to this rise is the increased inflow of smuggled arms into the country. Cases of multiple murders involving firearms that come to mind are those of Bentong Kali who killed 16 persons before he was shot dead by the Malaysian Police, as well as the secret society killings in Sungei Petani. The Police are also concerned that as China and the Indochinese countries continue to open up, the Police expect the supply of arms smuggled out from these countries to increase. Some will find their way into Singapore. It is absolutely important that we do not let such trafficking and illegal use of firearms, including grenades and bombs, to creep into our country. In Singapore, the recovery of hand grenades in two recent incidents provides justification for this concern. The first incident involved the discovery of two usable "Vietnam War era" grenades in a canal at Bedok in October 1991. The second incident involved an armed robbery of a goldsmith shop where two similar grenades were recovered on 19th November last year. These incidents underscore the possibility that firearms are being brought into Singapore from other places in the region. On 30th March 1992, one pregnant lady was killed when the car she was in was blown up with the use of explosives. Therefore, Sir, the signal must go out clearly and loudly to all criminals, foreign and local, that we will take a very tough stand in Singapore. Otherwise, Singapore will not be spared from a rise in violent offences such as robberies, involving the use of firearms. Therefore, we need to amend the Arms Offences Act to provide greater deterrent effect. Sir, the amendments will also plug a loophole in the Arms Offences Act. Under section 3(3) of the Act, any person who is armed at the time of the commission or apprehension for any of the scheduled offences - in other words, he has an arm on his person - will be guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life and at least 6 strokes of the cane. But if he discharges his firearm without intending to injure anyone in the course of commission of the offence, the law does not provide for a heavier penalty which is death. Why is this so? This is because section 4 of the Act imposes the mandatory death penalty only in cases where an offender uses or attempts to use an arm with the intention to cause physical injury to a person. To secure a conviction under section 4, the prosecution therefore has to prove the requisite intention to cause injury. In cases where injury or death is caused, of course, it would be easier for the prosecution to argue that the offender must have intended to cause injury as it is a logical consequence of the act of his discharge of the weapon. In cases where no injury is caused, the prosecution will find it difficult, if not impossible, to prove this intention. Indeed, this line of defence was put forward by three goldsmith robbers in a recent case. Members may remember reading the report of this case recently in June where three shots had been fired by the robbers during the robbery. No one was injured during the shooting. The prosecution sought to prove that two of the shots were fired at a security guard and another shot was fired at another guard with intent to cause injury. The accused denied any such intention. The Court found, on the evidence, that the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt an intention to injure the security guards and, accordingly, the capital charges were reduced to possession of arms at the time of commission of a scheduled offence under section 3(3), an offence which carries a penalty of life imprisonment. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is concerned that this defect in the Act, if not cured, will lead to a situation where criminals who are familiar with the current legal position and bent on using the firearms would not hesitate to discharge them. Because of this defect, there is a possibility that seasoned criminals who discharged their firearms in the course of the commission of a scheduled offence may get off on the lesser offence of possession. They know that they have a chance of escaping the death penalty by pleading an absence of intention to injure any person. Although evidence of intention can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, eg, where someone has been killed or injured as a result of the discharge of the firearm, it is difficult to prove such an intention where no one is injured. Therefore, the law as it stands now is open to criticism because it in fact favours a criminal who intends to injure but who cannot shoot well. Surely this cannot be right. In law, logic or in policy, possession of firearms is a grave offence. Carrying it with you on your person when you are committing an offence is even worse. Discharging it when committing an offence must be viewed most seriously. The punishment for such offences should not be made dependent on an accused's intention. A firearm is, as we all know, a very lethal weapon, and when fired, it can cause death or injury even to innocent bystanders in the vicinity, whatever the intention of the accused may be. Therefore, arms and firearms must be distinguished from other weapons like knives, parangs and so on. Not only to innocent bystanders but the discharge of a firearm has a tremendous effect of causing alarm on the population. Sir, crimes of violence of this kind must be strongly deterred and suppressed. In particular, the unlawful use of arms must not be condoned. Otherwise, it will lead to greater use of arms for unlawful purposes in Singapore and we will face the experience of many other countries in this regard. Peace and good order, which we value so much in Singapore, will be threatened. If I may go on to the amendments, Sir. The amendments achieve the following changes. First, by introducing a presumption clause under section 4(2) of the Act, vide clause 2, any person who has discharged a firearm will be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have intended to cause injury to a person. The evidential burden will now be on the offender. To rebut the presumption, he has to produce evidence to prove that he did not intend to cause injury to anyone. This will assist the prosecution to overcome the evidentiary burden in this section. Sir, the use of presumption clause for capital offence is not new. There are numerous precedents in the Misuse of Drugs Act where it is provided, for example, that where a person is proved to have the keys of anything containing a controlled drug, he is presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have had that drug in his possession. Under section 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, it is also provided that where a person is found in possession of a controlled drug, he is presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have known the nature of the controlled drug that he possesses. Secondly, Sir, and this is the main amendment, a new section 4A is introduced creating a new capital offence. Under this new section 4A, any person who discharges or attempts to discharge an arm in the course of committing or attempting to commit any offence listed in the Schedule, in other words, a scheduled offence, will be guilty of an offence punishable with death. This is to rectify the defect I mentioned earlier, ie, to provide for a heavier penalty for an offender who actually discharges or who attempts to discharge an arm while in the course of commission or attempted commission of a scheduled offence. Under this new section, there is no requirement for the prosecution to prove that the offender had the intention to cause injury to any person by the discharge or attempted discharge of his arm. As long as the prosecution can prove that he discharged his arm or attempted to discharge his arm while in the course of committing a scheduled offence, he will be guilty of this new offence. The reason for making attempted discharge of an arm while in the course of commission or attempted commission of a scheduled offence a capital offence is because offenders concerned have done everything they could in respect of these offences. In the case of attempted discharge, the arm failed to fire for reasons which are beyond their control. In the case of attempted commission, the offence was not completed because of external factors such as the timely arrival of the Police or the intervention of security guards. In any case, the public is equally put to alarm and fear by such attempts. There is therefore no reason to treat them otherwise. Next, Sir, vide clause 4 of the Bill, section 5 will also be re-enacted to make the accomplice of an offender of section 4A who is present at the scene of the crime and who ought reasonably to be aware of the fact that the offender is armed and who fails to take reasonable steps to prevent the discharge of the arm guilty of an offence punishable with death. This is the principle which is presently set out in the Act. Finally, Sir, one minor procedural amendment is that under section 12 of the Arms Offences Act, the President is empowered to amend the Schedule to the Act by an order. In modern legislation, such powers are normally conferred on the Minister. My Ministry proposes to amend the section to transfer this power to the Minister. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.