Indranee Rajah
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a clarification in relation to two written answers on childcare leave issued by the Prime Minister's Office on 25 September 2025 and 3 February 2026 in response to Parliamentary Questions filed by Members of Parliament Ms Cassandra Lee and Ms Valerie Lee respectively.”
“Based on Year of Assessment (YA) 2025 data, about 9,500 working mothers claimed a lower amount of Working Mother's Child Relief (WCMR) under the fixed-dollar basis than they would have under the previous percentage-based basis, for children born or adopted on or after 1 January 2024.”
“We regularly receive feedback on enhancing child-related leave provisions, including the Member's suggestion. In recent years, parental leave provisions have been significantly enhanced, such that parents now have 30 weeks of paid leave, including 10 weeks of Shared Parental Leave.”
“The Government does not have data on the number of transactions involving multiple units on a single residential title that have not been subdivided. Such properties are treated as a single property for Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) purposes when it is bought, so no ABSD is foregone.”
“The Government publishes data on personal income tax, which is publicly available on www.data.gov.sg. This includes data on the number of course fees relief claimants and the amount of the relief granted. The Member may refer to the website to access the data for the first three questions.”
“In considering the duration of leave, we will look at the need. In this case, as I have explained, there is a difference between those who give birth physically to a child and those who adopt.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,520 lines we hold for Indranee Rajah, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 28 of 51.
“The Law Society's intention is to prescribe that solicitors who practise in the area of litigation will need to complete a short online test and declare that they have done the test before applying for or renewing their practising certificates. This online test will be a self-assessment and self-learning tool to propagate good practices, as well as to reinforce and serve as a useful reminder of changes which are relevant to their practice area. For new entrants to the profession, and for those for whom litigation may not be a core practice area, they will benefit from having more guidance by way of this online test. The amendments in the Bill also allow the Law Society Council to exempt a solicitor or a class of solicitors if it is satisfied that the solicitor or class of solicitors is already equipped with the knowledge and skills required for practice in that area of the law. Next, I will deal with the UM Fund. Mr Murali Pillai asked why the proposed amendments do not require the Law Society to take reasonable efforts to return the money to the owners. The reason is because, that should have been done by the solicitors as part and parcel of their duties even before they pay the money over to the UM Fund. The Law Society's role is primarily that of a repository of the unclaimed moneys and administration of the approved uses to which it can be put. Its other role is to make discretionary decisions on payments out to clients after expiration of the limitation period. Broadly summarising, the new section 70K provides that a solicitor or Singapore law practice may apply to pay into the UM Fund, money which should be paid to the client but which they are unable to do so, despite making such reasonable efforts as the Law Society may require.”
“As such, penalty sums should be credited to the Law Society instead of the Compensation Fund. This will allow the Law Society to use the monies in a manner that advances the public interest. Second, as the Member has highlighted, allowing the penalty sum to be credited to the Law Society also aligns with the current crediting of penalties to the Law Society under section 95 of the Act, where the Council has ordered a lawyer to pay a penalty. Mr Murali Pillai asked about the expected amount of monies generated from penalties for failing to vote, given that the Law Society has moved to electronic voting for its Council elections recently. The average penalty collected prior to the implementation of online voting was about S$28,000. Since the implementation of online voting in October 2016, the amount of penalty sums collected has decreased significantly. For the period April 2017 to January 2018, the penalty sums collected decreased to S$13,500. Hence, the amount in question is not large. Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the operation and thinking behind clause 20 of the Bill, which relates to the requirement for prescribed classes of solicitors who practise or intend to practise in a prescribed area of law, to make a declaration when applying for a practising certificate. As mentioned, this amendment puts into effect the recommendation of the Study Committee on Professional Standards and Etiquette in Court under the auspices of the Singapore Academy of Law's Professional Affairs Committee, which looked into issues of professional standards and Court etiquette for the Bar. One of the Study Committee's recommendations was for the Law Society to introduce an online test to remind members of their professional obligations as counsel, and decorum and etiquette in Court.”
“Where the lawyer has been heard by Council and Council agrees that a warning, reprimand or penalty is not appropriate, Council may, pursuant to the new section 88(1A), impose a remedial measure that does not go into the lawyer's disciplinary records. And in that situation, he would already have been heard in the first instance. So, this addresses both of Mr Louis Ng's points as well. Mr Murali Pillai asked whether there are sufficient monies in the Compensation Fund. The Compensation Fund was first established in 1962 and it is maintained and administered by the Law Society. Where it has been proven to the satisfaction of Council that a person has sustained loss as a result of dishonesty by a lawyer, the Law Society may, if the Council thinks fit, make a grant to that person out of the Compensation Fund with the purpose of relieving or mitigating that loss. All practising lawyers have to make an annual contribution of S$100 to the Compensation Fund, bringing the total annual contribution to about S$500,000. For the financial year ending 31 March 2017, the balance in the Compensation Fund amounted to S$13 million. Over the past six years, about S$500,000 was paid out from the Compensation Fund. As such, there are sufficient monies in the Compensation Fund to meet the purposes of the Fund. Let me now address amendments relating to payment of penalties, for failure to vote, to the Law Society rather than the Compensation Fund. Currently, where Members fail to vote at Council elections, they pay a penalty of S$500, which is credited to the Compensation Fund. First, the Law Society's position is that the failure to vote at Council elections has no nexus with professional misconduct but rather pertains to the administration of the Law Society or its governance.”
“After the Council has considered the report of the Inquiry Committee, it can determine that no formal investigation is required and no penalty will be imposed on the lawyer. Council can also determine that there should be a formal investigation by the Disciplinary Tribunal. What section 88 deals with is the intermediate situation where it has been determined by the Council that some wrongdoing has occurred but no formal investigation is needed. So, it does not need to be referred to the Disciplinary Tribunal. With the amendments, this now allows for two options under section 88. First, the existing option for imposing a warning, reprimand or penalty continues to apply. These sanctions are entered as adverse orders against the lawyers named on the roll. Second, the new remedial measures, which are rehabilitative in nature, can also be considered. As mentioned, these remedial measures may include counselling and training for the lawyer. In line with the nature of the remedial measures which are not punitive and consistent with the objective of rehabilitating the lawyer, these are not entered against the name of the lawyer on the roll. In the event Council wishes to impose the former – meaning the reprimand or the penalty – the lawyer is always offered an opportunity to be heard. If having heard his explanations, Council remains of the view that those sanctions continue to be appropriate, those sanctions will be applied. This is how it is currently done and, therefore, there is no substantive change to the operations of section 88(1).”
“Second, the Inquiry Committee would already have found that the case of misconduct has been made out against the lawyer, and it would have taken the view that the complaint must be referred to a Disciplinary Tribunal. Third, the Disciplinary Tribunal would have determined that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists such that the matter has to be referred to the Court of three Judges. As Members will see, it is a vigorous process and one in which less serious infractions capable of remediation are weeded out early and dealt with. Each step of the process deals with increasing levels of severity of lapses or infractions. The complaints which come before the Court of three Judges are, therefore, the ones that involve egregious cases of misconduct for which the remedial actions are not sufficient or appropriate. But that said, as pointed out by Mr Murali Pillai, that does not foreclose the Court of three Judges from imposing requirements on legal practitioners, such as undertakings to the Court which may mirror obligations imposed through remedial measures. We do not condone bad behaviour by lawyers and we wish to send a message that errant lawyers will not be let off lightly for serious cases of misconduct. This brings me to Mr Louis Ng and Mr Christopher de Souza's point on the correlation between the amendments to section 88(1) read with section 88(3) and the opportunity to be heard under the latter provision. As mentioned, the disciplinary process for lawyers is multi-tiered. A lawyer who is the subject of a complaint may have reasonable opportunity to be heard by the Inquiry Committee.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken for their support of the Bill. Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Christopher de Souza inquired about the circumstances under which remedial measures may be imposed on a lawyer and what kind of remedial measures can be imposed. The introduction of remedial measures under the disciplinary framework for lawyers allows the Law Society Council to have a wide range of measures to deal with less serious disciplinary matters. These remedial measures can be imposed in addition to or in lieu of the current options which are available. Such remedial measures may involve training, counselling and other means of rehabilitation. These provide for a more nuanced, tailored and effective means to address the root causes of certain types of misconduct as well as reduce recidivism. Such remedial measures will be set out in subsidiary legislation. Mr Murali Pillai also asked why the proposed amendments do not provide for the Court of three Judges to impose remedial measures, unlike the Law Society Council or the Disciplinary Tribunal. The answer is that the system design is such that by the time it comes before the Court of three Judges, it means the case has gone well beyond remedial measures. The Court of three Judges is disciplinary in nature, not remedial. By the time a complaint involving misconduct by a lawyer comes before the Court of three Judges, three stages in the disciplinary review process would have been completed. First, a Review Committee would have decided that the complaint is of such substance that it must be referred to an Inquiry Committee.”
“In summary, all these amendments that I have mentioned will ensure that our framework for the legal industry continues to remain up to date and responsive to changes in the legal landscape. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Second, currently, the Law Society Council is only able to apply interest, dividends and other accretions of capital arising from the Compensation Fund which consists of contributions from solicitors, to purchase and maintain a library for its members’ use. Clause 19 of the Bill makes amendments to provide Council with greater flexibility to use such interest, dividends and other accretions of capital towards a wider range of worthwhile causes. Third, clause 17 of the Bill allows penalty sums which are collected from solicitors who fail to vote at the annual election of Law Society Council members to be credited to the Law Society, instead of the Compensation Fund. Fourth, clause 4 of the Bill extends an exception relating to the requirements for a practising certificate, which are currently applicable to solicitors employed by the Law Society, to those employed by wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Law Society. Fifth, clause 30 of the Bill allows Singapore law practices which are structured as law corporations and limited liability law partnerships to form a group law practice. Currently, only Singapore law practices structured as sole proprietorships and partnerships may form a group law practice. This updates the group law practice scheme which was introduced prior to the introduction of law corporations and limited liability law partnerships. Sixth, clause 25 of the Bill clarifies that a senior judge of the Supreme Court of Singapore can be appointed to sit as the President of the Disciplinary Tribunal. And lastly, clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill repeal section 36F of the current Act and makes consequential amendments as this category of registration of lawyers has been subsumed into other legislation categories under the regulatory regime and is no longer needed.”
“It is common in international commercial arbitration practice for law experts to make submissions on foreign law before tribunals. Extending this option to users of SICC will further enhance the attractiveness of SICC as a premier international commercial Court. Let me now touch briefly on the other key miscellaneous amendments. First, clauses 3 and 20 of the Bill amend the Act to give the Law Society Council the power to require prescribed classes of solicitors who practise or intend to practise in a prescribed area of law, to make a declaration when applying for a practising certificate. This amendment puts into effect the recommendation of the Study Committee on Professional Standards and Etiquette in Court under the auspices of the Singapore Academy of Law’s Professional Affairs Committee. The intention is to prescribe that solicitors who practise in the area of litigation will need to complete a short online test on professional conduct rules administered by the Law Society and declare that they have done the test before applying for or renewing their practising certificates. The test is not intended to be an onerous requirement but will serve as a self-learning and self-assessment tool to remind solicitors of their obligations as members of a noble profession. This will propagate good practices as well as reinforce and serve as a useful reminder of changes relevant to the practice area. Council also has the powers to exempt a solicitor or a class of solicitors from making a declaration, if the Council is satisfied that the solicitor or the class of solicitors is already equipped with the knowledge and skills required for practice in that area of the law.”
“Clause 31 of the Bill amends the current Act to provide for intervention money that has been unclaimed for six years in the special account to be transferred to the UM Fund instead of the Compensation Fund. Similarly, in the event that a claimant surfaces after six years, any ex-gratia payments by the Law Society will be paid out of the UM Fund instead. I now deal with the introduction of a registration category for non-practising foreign law experts to appear in the SICC to make submissions on matters of foreign law. Sir, SICC was established in 2015 as a division of the High Court to hear international commercial disputes, including those governed by foreign law. To date, SICC has heard 17 cases, with diverse subject matters, including banking and finance, shipbuilding, construction, investment and involving parties from jurisdictions, such as Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), India and Indonesia. Clauses 8 to 16 of the Bill seek to allow a non-practising foreign law expert, such as an academic, to appear in SICC to make submissions on matters of foreign law. This will allow experts with specialised knowledge on matters of foreign law, based on their training, study or experience, or who are otherwise qualified, to appear in relevant proceedings in the SICC and relevant appeals in the Court of Appeal to submit on matters of foreign law. Applications for registration of a law expert can be made to the Registrar. The Bill also extends the current complaints process, which is currently applicable to foreign lawyers registered to appear in SICC, to these foreign law experts. Related amendments to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act are also made.”
“The Law Society may invest or use the money in the UM Fund, as prescribed, to fund pro bono services provided by the Law Society or by any of its wholly-owned subsidiaries. This allows the unclaimed client money to be applied towards the public good instead of idling in a client account. It should be noted that the issue of unclaimed client money is not unique to Singapore. Solicitors in England and Wales have a framework under which a solicitor may pay unclaimed client money below a certain threshold to a charity, provided that certain requirements are fulfilled. I deal now with unclaimed intervention money. I mentioned earlier that unclaimed intervention money will be brought within this framework. Let me explain what this is. Under the current Act, the Law Society has the power to intervene in a lawyer’s practice in specified circumstances, for example, where a sole proprietor has died. As part of the intervention, the Law Society may take over the administration of the lawyer’s client accounts. The client money in these client accounts is called intervention money. It is because the Law Society has intervened. The intervention money is transferred into a special account held by the Law Society for the Law Society to administer, including returning the intervention money to the lawyer’s clients. The Act currently provides that intervention money which has remained unclaimed for six years in the special account will be transferred to the Compensation Fund. In the event that a claimant surfaces after six years, the Law Society has the discretion to make an ex-gratia payment out of the Compensation Fund.”
“Once the money is in the UM Fund, should the lawful owner of the unclaimed client money surface after the money has been transferred to the UM Fund, the new section 70L provides a statutory mechanism for such persons to apply to the Law Society for the transferred money to be returned. Such claimants may also approach their lawyers, and their lawyers can apply to the Law Society on the claimants' behalf for the transferred money to be returned to the claimants. Details of the statutory mechanism will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation. The new sections 70K(4) and 70L(1) provide a six-year limitation period, commencing from the date the Law Society approves the transfer of the unclaimed client moneys, for actions or claims to recover the transferred unclaimed client money. After six years, any rights the client may have against the lawyer in relation to the unclaimed client money, or any statutory claim a claimant may have against the Law Society, will be extinguished. This is so that there will be clarity and certainty for the lawyers and law practices who transfer unclaimed client money into the UM Fund, especially for those who do so with a view towards retirement. However, the new section 70L(5) states that the Law Society has the power to make discretionary, or ex gratia, payments from the UM Fund to claimants who apply after the time bar. The Law Society's discretion will be exercised on a case-by-case basis. In exercising its discretion, the Law Society will consider factors, such as the reasons why the claimant did not approach the Law Society before the time bar, for example, whether they were prevented by matters, such as fraud or disability, and whether there will be undue hardship if no ex-gratia payment is made.”
“In these cases, the lawyers and law practices concerned would be unable to close the client account, and must hold the unclaimed client money indefinitely, incurring costs in administering the client accounts. Lawyers who want to retire and dissolve their law practices, but who are holding onto unclaimed client moneys, are in a difficult position. They either have to find another practising lawyer willing to take over the administration of the client account, or they would be unable to retire and must continue to bear the expenses of maintaining their law practices and these client accounts. Clause 18 of the Bill provides a practical solution to this problem. A new Unclaimed Money Fund (UM Fund) will be maintained and administered by the Law Society. Solicitors and Singapore law practices will be able to transfer unclaimed client money into the UM Fund, provided that they satisfy certain requirements and the Law Society approves the transfer. These requirements will be prescribed by the Law Society Council with the Minister's approval and will include what reasonable efforts the solicitor or Singapore law practice should have made to return the money, before the Society will approve a transfer. Such "reasonable efforts" will take various circumstances into account, for example, more robust steps may be required in the case of larger amounts, and account may be taken of practical issues which may arise in cases of very old client accounts. Provision is made for the framework to be extended, where appropriate, to foreign lawyers and foreign law practices or entities regulated under the Act.”
“The amendments seek to deal with the root causes of certain types of misconduct, reduce recidivism, as well as widen the range of measures available to deal with less serious disciplinary matters. Clauses 2, 22, 23, 24 and 26 to 29 of the Bill thus expand the range of measures that may be imposed during disciplinary proceedings to include remedial measures. Such remedial measures can be imposed in addition to, or in lieu of, the current options which are available to the Law Society Council. The amendments will enable the Council to prescribe remedial measures, such as those which involve training, counselling and other means of rehabilitation. This does not mean that serious cases of misconduct will be dealt with lightly. Rather, it strengthens our disciplinary framework for lawyers with a broader range of disciplinary options that can be imposed, together with other existing measures, or in lieu of, where appropriate. The second main set of amendments introduced a framework to deal with unclaimed client money and unclaimed intervention money. Client money refers to the money which lawyers and law practices may receive in the course of client engagements, to hold on behalf of their clients. The Act currently requires all client money to be held and administered by the practising lawyer in a client account. The money remains in the client account until it is paid out based on the client's instructions or returned to the client. However, the Act does not currently specify what happens when client money is left unclaimed in a client account, for example, if the client becomes uncontactable.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill makes amendments to the Legal Profession Act in three main areas. First, it introduces new measures to the disciplinary framework for lawyers to supplement the existing suite of measures. Second, it introduces a framework to deal with unclaimed client money and brings unclaimed intervention money within the same framework. Third, it introduces a registration category for non-practising foreign law experts to appear in the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) to make submissions on matters of foreign law. It also contains certain miscellaneous and technical amendments. The majority of the amendments being introduced in this Bill are at the request of the Law Society. Let me now take the House through the key amendments in the Bill. The legal profession is a noble one and members of the profession must continue to hold themselves to the highest ethical standards of professional conduct. This is essential to Singapore's reputation as an international legal services hub as well as for the protection of the public and clients. Under the current disciplinary framework for lawyers, the range of disciplinary measures available to the Law Society Council include issuing a warning or reprimand to the lawyer, and/or ordering the lawyer to pay a penalty. In more egregious and serious cases of misconduct, the Court of three Judges can order that a lawyer be suspended or struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. This Bill introduces more nuanced and calibrated options to the range of disciplinary measures.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, as this Bill is closely related to the previous Bill on the Order Paper, the Criminal Justice Reform Bill, and all the matters that were canvassed in the earlier debate relate to this Bill as well, I believe it may not be necessary for any substantive matters to be addressed here, unless Members also have additional questions or queries. And, if not, I would beg to move.”
“I thank the Member for his clarifications which actually extended his speech by an additional minute. Mr Murali Pillai sought clarification on why the restrictions on asking certain kinds of questions of victims of sexual offences or child abuse are being contained in subsidiary legislation. The decision to place the restrictions in subsidiary legislation was made pursuant to discussions with the Law Society as it was thought that this would allow for greater flexibility to make refinements over time to strike a fair balance between due process and preventing trauma to the victim. Mr Murali Pillai also suggested that if the subsidiary legislation had been made in this area, it should be determined by perhaps the CPRC and not the Minister. This is so that the Court would be able to give input on the nature of the restrictions. The specific restrictions on questions have to be formulated in consideration of a very wide spectrum of interests that may go beyond the expertise of the CPRC. For example, the views of those who work closely with victims of sexual offences would be relevant. So, on balance, we decided that the Minister would, for now, be best placed to consider the entire spectrum of considerations. But, of course, the Minister will consult all affected parties, including the Courts, when formulating these restrictions. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Other than that, I think I have addressed the various queries.”
“In short, the underlying philosophy of this is that you already have had several chances at it and the Court has considered it, not once, but twice, or possibly more. And if you want to overturn this, you must show that there has been a miscarriage of justice or it is very, very clear the earlier decisions were wrong. But, of course, people may ask: but what if there is one case where actually something turns up which was not considered before and it is demonstrably wrong, you think it is miscarriage of justice, but it is does not meet one of these conditions? In that scenario, it is actually provided for – because the amendments provide that it does not affect the inherent power of an appellate Court to review on its own motion an earlier decision of the appellate Court. Fundamentally, what Courts seek to do is to do justice. Obviously, I would not anticipate what the Courts would do but I can say that if it is very, very clear to a Court that there has been a miscarriage of justice and something is really fundamentally and really wrong which could not have been addressed earlier, then the Court has its inherent power to review the matter. I think I have addressed most of the queries except possibly for one question by Asst Prof Mahdev which is on requiring the defence to disclose a Supplementary Bundle and what should be done to balance the difference in resources between the defence and the prosecution. The idea here is you also do not want to allow the defence to ambush the prosecution by only producing its documentary exhibits at trial because that really does not save resources as well and then it results in adjournments and follow-up investigations and so on. And such adjournments would actually lengthen the proceedings.”
“You, therefore, have to show that it is something where it could not or had not been canvassed at an earlier stage. Because if it had been canvassed at an earlier stage and it was considered and the Court had said no, then really, it should follow the normal procedural rules, which is, that you do not re-open concluded hearings. It is also a requirement that even with reasonable diligence, the material could not have been adduced in Court earlier. Obviously, that is to impress upon parties that they must take all reasonable efforts to look for the relevant evidence. And the material must be compelling, in that the material is reliable, substantial, powerfully probative and capable of showing almost conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice in the criminal matter in respect of which the earlier decision was made. This is repeated in other provisions where it says that the appellate Court may conclude there has been a miscarriage of justice in the criminal matter if the earlier decision is demonstrably wrong and the earlier decision is tainted by fraud or breach of rules on a matter of justice, such that the integrity of the judicial process is compromised. It is not sufficient to show that there was a real possibility that the earlier decision is wrong; it must be apparent based on the evidence tendered in support of the review application that there is a powerful probability that the earlier decision is wrong. For the purposes of the subsection on what is demonstrably wrong, it must be shown that the decision was based on a fundamental misapprehension of the law or the facts, thereby resulting in a decision that is blatantly wrong on the face of the record.”
“The re-opening procedure, including the relevant threshold tests, is largely a codification of a number of considered decisions made by the Court of Appeal in balancing the interests of finality against the need to prevent a miscarriage of justice. We are confident that in administering the threshold tests, which the Court had itself developed in case law, the Court will give due regard to the prevention of miscarriages of justice. The Government shares this concern and that is why this procedure is being legislated. And, a balance has to be struck. It may be helpful to look at the provisions in the amendments. In terms of looking at the requirements for the exercise of the power of review, there are a few things that have to be taken into account. First, the applicant in the review application must satisfy the appellate Court that there is sufficient material on which the appellate Court may conclude that there has been a miscarriage of justice. The key thing here is miscarriage of justice and that material must satisfy the following requirements. Before the filing of the application of leave to make the review application, the material must not have been canvassed at any stage of the proceedings in the criminal matter, in respect of which the earlier decision was made. So, it must be remembered that this scenario is different from a scenario where something is coming up for consideration for the first time. This is intended to address the scenario where it has been heard once – it has been appealed, it has been heard – and, therefore, you are trying to re-open it again, which means the Court has already applied its mind. Therefore, the threshold is different.”
“That said, compensation orders of a certain amount can only be made by the Criminal Courts if there is sufficient and cogent evidence to support the amount being ordered. In addition, our Courts have previously said that a compensation order should not be oppressive and the Court must be satisfied that the accused either has the means available, or will have the means, to pay the compensation within a reasonable time. This is to ensure that the compensation order does not simply become a de facto extension of imprisonment, which may be unfair to the offender. Finally, as mentioned earlier, complex cases will have to be dealt with by the Civil Courts and not the Criminal Courts. Mr Louis Ng also asked about the rationale for limiting criminal compensation for a deceased victim’s dependants to funeral expenses and bereavement. Criminal compensation for a deceased victim’s dependants has been limited to funeral expenses and bereavement because these expenditures are easily quantified and assessed. For example, compensation for bereavement has been pegged to a fixed quantum set out in the Civil Law Act. More complex forms of damages arising from the death of a person, such as loss of amenity or loss of future earnings, should be dealt with in the Civil Courts. I move on now to the question of abuse of process in concluded criminal cases. Mr Louis Ng expressed some concern about the threshold for re-opening a concluded criminal case. He asked that considerations of justice and the prevention of error be given due weight even at that late stage of the proceedings. Mr Kok Heng Leun raised a similar concern. I believe Asst Prof Mahdev also highlighted this.”
“Some crimes may be too serious and it would not serve the justice system well to allow such offenders to be given community sentences. Some offenders may not benefit from community sentences. Hence, the regime is carefully calibrated and we need to draw the line somewhere. Nevertheless, we will continue to examine the eligibility requirements and extend the line, where appropriate. Mr Louis Ng also asked whether we will consider giving the Courts more alternative sentencing options. He asked this in the context of a recent case where reformative training was imposed on a young intellectually-challenged offender for the sexual assault of a 16-year-old girl. Mr Murali Pillai made a similar observation about the limitations in that case. We have taken note of this case and MHA will consider this in the context of a broader policy review on sentencing. Moving on now to victim compensation. Mr Louis Ng asked for elaboration on the process of ordering victim compensation. Mr Christopher de Souza asked a similar clarification on whether this changes the existing principle that the Court should not be required to embark on complicated investigations of fact or law when deciding on compensation orders. The key procedures and the processes involved will be found in the CPC Rules, after consultation with the relevant stakeholders like AGC and the Courts. We have already been consulting these stakeholders to ensure that the processes and procedures implemented will be simple and inexpensive. Mr Louis Ng asked whether there would be a limit on the amount of compensation awarded. There is no statutory limit on the compensation that can be ordered.”
“As regard Mr Murali Pillai's point on the difference between the MTO regime and the RT regime, there is, in fact, no inconsistency. In the context of a RT pre-sentencing report, the psychiatrist is focused on whether there is any aspect of the offender’s mental condition that renders him or her unsuitable for RT. For example, the psychiatrist will take into account whether any condition will be aggravated by the RT environment, or whether it will affect his or her ability to be rehabilitated in the RT environment. If the psychiatrist does not find any reason to recommend that an offender is unsuitable for RT, and the Court finds, after considering all relevant factors, that the offender should be sentenced to RT, the end result is that the offender will be sentenced to RT. The offender is not sentenced to undergo mandatory treatment for a psychiatric condition. The ethical issue highlighted above does not, therefore, arise in the context of RT pre-sentencing reports. Mr Murali Pillai asked for an update on the Ministry's consideration of his proposal made at an Adjournment Motion some time back, on moving towards a different test for determining MTO suitability. The Ministry is still studying the proposal. In the meantime, the amendments today significantly expand the range of offenders potentially eligible for MTOs and we hope that this will go some way to addressing Mr Murali Pillai's concerns. Mr Louis Ng asked whether we intend to eventually allow the Courts the full discretion to decide when a community sentence can be imposed. We have taken a balanced approach in deciding which offences and offenders should be eligible for community sentences.”
“First, he observed that the Court cannot take a different view from the appointed psychiatrist, as regards an offender’s susceptibility to treatment. He also cited a previous case that he dealt with, where an apparent change in opinion on the part of the appointed psychiatrist, resulted in the Court being unable to impose an MTO on the accused person. Let me begin by making a brief clarification about the case that Mr Murali Pillai refers to. We had checked on this with IMH following the Adjournment Motion in September last year. The psychiatrist in question explained that his first report had indicated that while a period of inpatient stay may be beneficial in his condition, the likelihood of significant improvement in his condition with treatment was very low. The report was not for the purposes of assessing MTO suitability. The second report, some four months later, was for the purposes of assessing MTO suitability. In the second report, the psychiatrist concluded that the offender was, in fact, not suitable for MTO as the treatment available was not likely to result in significant improvement in his condition. I hope that this clarifies the situation that Mr Murali Pillai raised. Mr Murali Pillai’s broader point, however, is that the Courts should be allowed to impose an MTO, notwithstanding the appointed psychiatrist’s opinion that the offender is not suitable for MTO. The reasons for not taking up this suggestion are as follows. Given that, generally, IMH is the institution to administer treatment under the MTO, there is a concern of conflict of medical ethics if IMH were to be asked to treat a person it believes does not have a treatable mental condition. The current position, therefore, aligns the diagnostic and treatment elements of MTOs.”
“Mr Patrick Tay also asked what safeguards are put in place to ensure that victims of offenders placed on MTOs are protected while the offender is receiving treatment in the community and he cited the case of a woman who continued harassing her neighbour despite being on an MTO. The Court is unlikely to impose an MTO where there is clear evidence that the accused person is likely to cause danger to others while remaining in the community. In such cases, the principle of prevention is likely to outweigh the principle of rehabilitation. The Court may also impose conditions as it thinks fit to mitigate the risk of harm to the victim. We are also enhancing the MTO regime to allow for more flexibility of the treatment programmes. For example, we are empowering the Court to order a period of inpatient treatment for cases which require more intensive treatment. Ultimately, we have to accept that there is some risk created when imposing a community sentence but this must be weighed against the alternative, which is likely a relatively short sentence of imprisonment. If the root causes of offending are not addressed, the offender has a high chance of re-offending upon release, especially if the cause is mental illness. Ms Joan Pereira asked for an indication of the kinds of more serious offences that will be prescribed, to render them eligible for MTOs. The expanded list of offences which will be eligible for MTOs under the revised criteria will be clearly set out in legislation. Offences that reflect a danger to public safety or which require greater deterrence will not be prescribed. Mr Murali Pillai raised two points, which he also raised earlier in an Adjournment Motion on CBS.”
“Mr Christopher de Souza asked for clarification on whether the change to the admissibility of section 27 PCA statements is a clarification or a change in the law. The explanatory statement uses the word "clarify" because the relevant Court decision states that in respect of non-corruption offences, "the failure to inform the person interviewed of his privilege against self-incrimination, coupled with telling him that he is legally bound to tell the truth may amount to an inducement". This leaves it debatable in each case whether merely telling a person that he is bound to tell the truth amounts to an inducement. The amendment, therefore, clarifies that, on its own, telling a person that he is legally bound to tell the truth, shall not render a statement inadmissible. However, this clarification is achieved through a substantive change. Courts will not be allowed to treat the mere fact that a CPIB officer told the interviewee that he is bound to tell the truth under the PCA, as grounds that the statement was given under an inducement for the purposes of a non-corruption offence. Ms Joan Pereira asked about the up-take rate of CBS. Since 2011, the number of offenders who were sentenced to community sentences has varied from around 100, to more than 200 offenders. We will continue to work with stakeholders to encourage the use of community sentences in suitable cases. Mr Patrick Tay asked for statistics on MTOs. Given that MTOs, along with the various other community orders, have been introduced relatively recently, we have limited data on recidivism. Having said that, early data suggests that the recidivism rate amongst offenders sentenced to community sentences tend to have a lower rate of recidivism than the general prison population.”
“Mr Murali Pillai asked about the clarification on the policy and rationale behind making statements recorded under section 27 of the PCA, admissible in respect to non-PCA offences. Let me first clarify that the proposal is a very calibrated shift. Statements taken under section 27 of the PCA will only be admissible as evidence in the trial of that person for any criminal offence, in the following circumstances. There is no inducement, threat or promise that would otherwise render the statement inadmissible; and the person taking the statement under section 27 of the PCA must have believed, in good faith, that the interviewee was a person who had been concerned in any offence under the PCA. Under the current law, therefore, what might happen is that a person, in the course of being investigated for corruption, may reveal that he or she has also committed another offence. The CPIB will then have to go through the artificial exercise of recording another statement under the CPC. And then, what happens if in the second statement, the accused person changes his tune and decides not to reveal the fact of such an offence? Should the accused person be allowed to avoid prosecution on the procedural ground that section 27 PCA statements cannot be admitted in prosecution for other offences? The real concern, then, is whether this amendment will create an incentive for CPIB officers to circumvent the privilege against self-incrimination in the CPC. To prevent that, we have inserted the safeguards earlier mentioned: it requires that the CPIB officer can only use the statement in the prosecution of other offences, when he or she believes in good faith that the interviewee was a person who had been concerned in any offence under PCA.”
“They will be drafted to ensure that there is a sufficient pool for psychiatrists. MinLaw welcomes any feedback as we work through how to formulate the criteria. This should also deal with Mr Kok Heng Leun’s concern as to whether it will be more costly to hire a psychiatrist. Given that we expect the impact on the choice of psychiatrists to be minimal, it should not become more expensive for the accused person to hire a psychiatrist. Mr Kok Heng Leun expressed concern that a psychiatrist on the panel may be unwilling to state honest but controversial views. The proposal is not intended to target psychiatrists who give unconventional views. It is intended to target psychiatrists who display a clear lack of objectivity or competence. A psychiatrist will not be removed from the panel just because the Court does not accept his or her opinion. The basic thing is, objectivity and competence. We also note Mr Patrick Tay's suggestion to provide the panel of psychiatrists with training. We will be working with stakeholders to see what needs they have in this regard. Mr Murali Pillai asked whether there will be a fixed quota of psychiatrists. The answer is no; no fixed quota. Mr Murali Pillai also asked for elaboration on what other factors the selection committee will take into consideration in deciding whether to admit a psychiatrist to the panel, besides qualifications, work experience and character references. As mentioned, the selection criteria have not been finalised; so, we will work with stakeholders on suitable criteria. If Members, especially those in private practice, have thoughts on this, they should feel free to send their feedback to MinLaw.”
“The Prisons currently operate a tele-visit system that allows counsel to interview their clients in remand through teleconferencing without physically travelling to the prison. That, as I understand it, is secure. The client-solicitor privilege is protected. Obviously, the confidentiality is protected as well and that has been working reasonably well. From past experience and based on our conversations with the Bar, we think there is a consensus that with the right technology and processes, we can have systems for communications that will satisfy the requirements of the Defence. In short, we will continue to consult the Criminal Bar on the implementation in this respect but the important thing will be to ensure the confidentiality and that the solicitor-client privilege is preserved. In essence, currently, there is already a system for counsel to speak to the accused and to take instructions. Dr Tan Wu Meng asked about the kind of subsidiary legislation that we envisage for regulating expert evidence and whether there will be consultation on the proposed regulations. The answer is, yes, there will be consultation with relevant stakeholders. One example of subsidiary legislation that we envisage, as Dr Tan already alluded to, is to expressly state the obligations of an expert witness, as is currently done for civil procedure. Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Christopher de Souza, and Mr Kok Heng Leun, all asked whether there are safeguards to ensure a sufficiently wide choice of psychiatrists. The selection criteria has not been finalised yet. It is not the intention to set an extremely high bar for admission to the panel; we expect that most psychiatrists with the relevant forensic training will be able to qualify.”
“Mr Desmond Choo asked what safeguards will there be to ensure that the usage of video link will not compromise on the standard and quality of the proceedings and will not affect the process of justice; whether cybersecurity measures will be in place to ensure that the links are free from being hacked by external parties; and whether there will be consultations with stakeholders and the Court users. Careful consideration has been given to ensure that the fairness of the hearing process is not affected by the use of video link. We have and will continue to engage with the Criminal Bar and other stakeholders on the implementation of this scheme. The necessary security measures will be considered in the technical part of the planning and implementation. Ms Sylvia Lim expressed some concerns about whether allowing video-link proceedings for guilty pleas and sentencing proceedings will diminish the impact of warnings from judges. One of the reasons we are extending video-link hearings to more substantive matters at this time is improvements in technology. We will be using video-link technology with sufficient audio and visual fidelity so that the Court proceedings will not be adversely affected. This is actually part of the overall general move. We think that, going forward, technology is going to be more and more infused in practice, both civil as well as criminal. That is the direction in which it is moving. Ms Sylvia Lim was also concerned with confidential communication between defence counsel and their clients. We had consulted the Law Society and the Criminal Bar and they, too, had raised this point and we have had discussions with them.”
“Mr Patrick Tay proposed that the CPRC should seek inputs from social science and technology experts. The CPRC will consult the relevant stakeholders, where appropriate. On abolition of Committal Hearings, Mr Vikram Nair asked for an assurance that with the replacement committal hearings with the transmission procedure, there would still be sufficient safeguards to filter out unmeritorious prosecutions. As mentioned, the key benefit of committal hearings, as practised today, is pre-trial documentary disclosure of the prosecution's case. Today's amendments extend the pre-trial disclosure regime to cover practically every criminal offence that is likely to be tried at the High Court. At trial, the Defence is free to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses. If at the end of the prosecution's case there is no prima facie evidence of guilt, the accused will be acquitted without being called upon to raise a defence. This threshold, together with the CCD process, provides the answer to Mr Vikram Nair's question. This move will actually benefit accused persons in reducing their time spent in remand or waiting for the trial to commence, as well as the overall administration of justice. In short, basically, the Committal Hearing procedure before had two main advantages. One is disclosure, or discovery, and second is the cross-examination. What the statistics have shown is that the cross-examination part of it is very rarely invoked but we will, of course, keep the discovery part. You still get a chance to cross-examine when it goes on to a High Court trial. The benefit is that you shorten the time the person spends in remand. I move on now to the video-link hearings.”
“So, it does not have a binding effect; stare decisis does not apply. It does not set a precedent for other DPAs. Every situation will be highly fact-specific. The approval will only be granted if the DPA is in the interests of justice and its terms are fair, reasonable and proportionate. That is the first threshold. The Court should not grant or approve the DPA unless it has met that threshold. Under these rules, the Court is not prevented from giving grounds. In other words, the system that we have is actually consistent with the current system that we have for any other type of judgment whether it be criminal or civil, meaning that our Courts are not under a compulsory obligation to publish grounds, certainly at first instance. If it goes on appeal, it is different because, obviously, in an appeal, you are looking at the reasons why the judge decided in a particular way and you need the grounds for decision. Currently, for criminal and civil proceedings, Courts sometimes give grounds – they sometimes give oral grounds, sometimes they give written grounds. It is the same for this. It is open to the Court to give grounds if the Court wishes to do so, but there will also be some cases which are actually very straightforward and it is not necessary for the Court to give written grounds. So, we essentially leave it to the Courts and the Courts can decide where it may be appropriate to do so. I am aware, of course, that, in the UK, they give grounds but there are other jurisdictions where DPA is applicable where they do not, such as the US, for example. So we thought we would just have a system that is consistent with the current practice on judgments. Moving on to the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee (CPRC).”
“It is open to the Court to ask for information about the possible impact of a DPA on various stakeholders, to assist in making its decision on the approval of a DPA. Mr Murali Pillai also proposed that monitors appointed under a DPA be subject to oversight by the Court. The conditions that can be attached to a DPA are deliberately left flexible, subject to the High Court's approval. It is open to parties to negotiate and set out details concerning the role and supervision of monitors in the DPA. Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Vikram Nair and Ms Sylvia Lim asked why the High Court is not required to give reasons in a DPA decision. Ms Sylvia Lim also asked why DPA proceedings in the High Court would be held in camera. Let me take Ms Sylvia Lim's questions on the in camera hearings first. We considered that if proceedings for a DPA approval were held in the public view and, if the DPA did not eventually come into force, the company negotiating the DPA would be prejudiced, or could be prejudiced, in any future criminal proceedings based on the same facts – that was actually the point that Mr Murali Pillai made. Because if companies have reason to fear that their willingness to negotiate a DPA will prejudice their defence later on, then they may be unwilling to volunteer information or cooperate and the benefits of the DPA scheme will then be undermined. That is the same reason that representations written by the Defence to AGC are protected by the "without prejudice" privilege. It is essentially the same underlying philosophy that applies to "without prejudice" negotiations. With respect to the other question of why we do not require the Courts to give reasons, some of it relates to this, but the general thinking is this: the DPA is not a judgment.”
“Mr Patrick Tay asked whether a code of practice for the use of DPAs, similar to that published in the UK, will be published here. The answer is, no, because that would be similar to publishing prosecutorial guidelines and we have a slightly different approach from that of the UK. The publication of the code of practice in the UK is consistent with their general position that prosecutorial guidelines are published. In Singapore, the general position on such publication is different. This is to ensure that prosecutorial guidelines do not become a tool for criminals to refer to in manipulating the criminal justice system to escape punishment. Mr Murali Pillai asked for a confirmation that the legislative framework on DPAs does not preclude the Court from allowing interested stakeholders to join in the proceedings. We can consider this issue further. However, the basic position should be that a company's decision-making power lies with its board. Other stakeholders, such as shareholders, do not have the same power. The Courts have actually pronounced on the reason for this. The reason is that the board and the directors have a fiduciary duty. They are obliged to act in the best interest of the company. Shareholders do not have a similar fiduciary duty. Shareholders are free to act in their own interest. So, in some cases, their interests may well be aligned, but, sometimes, they may not be. At the end of the day, when you are entering into a DPA and negotiating it, the primary decision-making power should rest with the company and its board. If the shareholders have issues with the decisions, then they have other avenues available to them, such as the General Meeting, and, of course, the other rights available to shareholders under the Companies Act.”
“Ms Joan Pereira also mentioned that it is important for investigators to handle DNA samples and other forensic evidence carefully. I would like to assure Ms Joan Pereira that our investigators are held to rigorous standards. Should any mishap occur – which, hopefully, they would not – the relevant agencies will conduct internal investigations and make improvements to their protocols where needed. I move on now to the Enhancement and Rationalisation of Fitness to Plead and the Unsoundness of Mind regime. Dr Tan Wu Meng asked about what would happen if the maximum term of confinement under the CPC has been reached and the subject is still found to be unsafe for discharge as he or she remains a danger to himself or herself or others. He or she will be transited to the regime under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act and will continue to be confined for treatment, usually at the IMH. It is just that the criminal charge element is removed. A person confined under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act is periodically reviewed and assessed for his or her suitability for release. I move on now to Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs). Mr Christopher de Souza asked whether the requirement for corporate offenders to be represented by counsel includes in-house counsel. The legislation states that the party must be represented by an advocate, which is defined as an advocate and solicitor lawfully entitled to practise criminal law in Singapore. Having said that, in-house counsel who do not fall into this category can assist or participate in negotiations on the DPA. And when you go to Court, you would have to be somebody who has the right of audience.”
“If these types of questions are asked in the context of an offence under section 356, then the restrictions may apply. Section 356 has been included because victims of such offences have always received the benefit of certain protective measures, such as being able to give evidence via video link. To have taken them out would also mean that a class of victims that were previously given the benefit of protective measures would now be deprived of the new protections. However, even after this legislation, we will continue to review the classes of victims that will be covered by various protective measures to ensure that the correct balance is struck. Ms Joan Pereira asked what recourse a victim has, if she felt that the counsel had ridiculed her to the point of disparaging her reputation during a Court hearing and whether the presiding judge would consciously be on the look-out for irrelevant insulting questions. As we have seen in previous cases, lawyers who cross the line may be subject to disciplinary proceedings. Judges are also vigilant to ensure that questioning by Defence Counsel does not cross the line. The measures that we are putting in place today will further strengthen these safeguards by allowing the Minister to make rules to further restrict the kinds of questions that can be asked of alleged victims during cross-examination, including the introduction of a requirement to ask the Court's permission before certain questions are asked. The fact that the Court can control the questions before they are asked, in the absence of the victim, is significant. This gives the Judges more control over the proceedings to ensure that the victims are not intimidated by insulting and irrelevant lines of questioning.”
“The area of sexual offences is one area that we are looking at. The Committee will complete its work and make its recommendations sometime this year. These recommendations will include recommendations on whether penalties should be enhanced and whether new offences are needed. Mr Louis Ng also sought a clarification on what questions the proposed section 154A(1)(a) of the Evidence Act will cover that do not already fall under the scope of section 154 today. On a related note, Mr Louis Ng asked whether the combined effect of the new section 154(1)(a) and section 154(2)(c) is intended to stop certain questions even before they are asked. The specific restrictions will be set out in subsidiary legislation. As explained, the accused or his Counsel will not be allowed to ask questions about a victim’s sexual behaviour with persons other than the accused when such behaviour does not relate to the charge, unless leave of Court is first obtained. Hence, unlike section 154, which is broadly phrased in terms of the questions that are forbidden, section 154A will be more specific. As Mr Louis Ng has pointed out, the requirement for prior leave is also a key difference between section 154 and section 154A. This will ensure that only appropriate questions that are in the interests of justice may be asked. The leave stage will also insulate victims from hearing insulting and irrelevant questions, as the Court will not permit such questions to be asked. Finally, Mr Louis Ng also asked a very specific question on whether offences under section 356 which are of a non-sexual nature will be caught under the definition of "sexual offences" in the new section 154A. The restrictions will only apply if the accused or Defence seeks to ask questions relating to the victim's sexual behaviour.”
“The restrictions on cross-examination are intended to apply to those sexual offences where questions relating to the victim's sexual behaviour, sexual history and the physical appearance are most likely to be asked. For other offences, such as criminal intimidation or harassment, the Evidence Act gives the judge the power to disallow certain forms of cross-examination. So, as a starting point, only relevant questions can be asked on cross-examination. And the Court has the power to disallow questions that are intended to insult or annoy. Indecent and scandalous questions may also be forbidden. Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked whether the restrictions will create a chilling effect on Defence Counsel which will make their difficult job even harder. The answer is that, actually, all that is required is for leave to be sought in advance. So, so long as the Counsel can show that it is relevant and that there is a good reason for it, leave should be granted and leave will be granted if it is in the interest of justice. So, we are not saying that the topic cannot be raised but you must show a very good reason why you are asking those questions. Finally, Mr Patrick Tay suggested that there should be a set of guidelines on the use of screens in Courtrooms. We are aware of the various operational issues that may arise and we will work closely with stakeholders on implementation, to ensure that the use of the screen is not counter-productive. Mr Louis Ng has asked whether the Government will also consider enhancing penalties or creating new offences, especially for online predators. The Government has announced this before and I will emphasise. There is a Penal Code Review Committee that has been set up to conduct a broad review of the Penal Code.”
“Mr Kok Heng Leun related a particularly moving story about the impact on a victim and many of the other Members, too, have cited examples. This just goes to show how much impact Court procedures can have on a victim and how they can sometimes be forced to relive over and over again the dreadful experience that they first underwent. So, it is very important that we have to address this. Mr Patrick Tay pointed out some myths and stereotypes which may be associated with sexual offences. And while not all of them can be addressed through legislation, the present amendments do go some way towards tackling them. So, Mr Patrick Tay asked whether sections 366 and 367 of the Penal Code could be included in the First Schedule of the Evidence Act. The First Schedule, currently, lists the main sexual and child abuse offences that are more frequently prosecuted. Sections 366 and 367 of the Penal Code are offences of kidnapping or abduction albeit with a sexual element. Prosecutions under these provisions are rare. That said, the First Schedule gives us the flexibility of including other offences where it is determined that restrictions should similarly apply. Mr Patrick Tay also asked whether more offences, such as those for criminal intimidation or harassment, should be given the same treatment. In particular, he is concerned about instances where the criminal intimidation imputes unchastity to a woman or where harassment is sexual in nature. He asked whether the judge ought to be given the flexibility to decide to apply similar restrictions on cross-examination, even though they are not offences listed in the First Schedule.”
“Criminal practitioners would know that bail is granted in the vast majority of cases. Notwithstanding the recent high-profile case, absconding from bail is also rare. When accused persons on bail abscond, the bail sum pledged by the surety may be forfeited. If the accused person is still within Singapore, attempts will be made to locate and arrest them. In the event that the accused person flees overseas, Police may issue an INTERPOL Red Notice. Police forces in INTERPOL member states will then help to locate and arrest the accused person. The wanted person may then be extradited back to Singapore. Absconding from bail is also an aggravating factor which could result in a higher sentence when the accused person is later brought back to face charges against him. The changes made to the CPC in this Bill will further strengthen our bail regime. In particular, absconding from bail will be made an offence. Mr Patrick Tay also asked about the rationale behind allowing bail for extradition cases where special circumstances apply and what such special circumstances would be required to grant bail in such cases. We thought that it would be too harsh to prohibit bail in extradition proceedings without exception. The specific "special circumstances" which would justify the grant of bail will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation. So, for example, special circumstances could exist if the accused person was a juvenile, or was sick or infirm. I move on now to enhancing protection for victims of sexual and child abuse. I am very heartened that so many Members have stood up to support the proposals on enhancing protection for victims of sexual and child abuse.”
“The Police will put in place strict Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to ensure that the searches are made with strict regard to decency. Now, bail. Mr Christopher de Souza asked whether the prohibition against indemnity agreements would make it unduly difficult for families to raise bail monies, as they sometimes need to get contributions from relatives and friends. The prohibition against indemnity agreements is premised on the seriousness of a surety's duty. The serious nature of this duty has been emphasised by the Courts on various occasions. For example, the High Court reiterated in a case last year that sureties' obligations were of "cardinal importance" and "consequences of significant gravity" must, therefore, attach to any breach of such obligations. It is, therefore, important that we do not allow sureties to be indemnified by third parties, as doing so would remove the incentive for them to fulfil their obligations. Having said that, I should clarify the scope of the offence. It will require that the surety enters into an agreement with the third-party, that if bail is forfeited because the accused person absconds, the third-party will cover all or part of the forfeited bail that the surety will be liable to pay. It does not mean that the surety can never borrow money to raise bail. For example, if the surety borrows some money to raise bail and remains liable to repay that money, then it is not an indemnity. In other words, the surety must have a vested interest in ensuring that the person turns up in Court. Mr Patrick Tay asked for statistics on the frequency of bail granted and the incidence of absconding in the past five years. He also asked whether such persons were later apprehended and how they were dealt with.”
“Between 1985 and 2008, female suicide bombers carried out more than 230 attacks, about a quarter of all such acts. One of the earliest users of this tactic was the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) or the "Tamil Tigers", in their campaign against the Sri Lankan government. They assassinated former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in a suicide bomb attack in 1991. The attacker was a 17-year-old girl. Tragically, this is not a phenomenon of the past. The BBC very recently reported that Boko Haram in Nigeria has been kidnapping girls, some as young as 13 and forcing them to go on suicide bombing missions in crowded public areas. This was confirmed by some girls who managed to escape. Female suicide bombers deployed by Boko Haram have killed more than 1,225 people. Research suggests that terror groups use female attackers to gain specific tactical advantages. These include a perceived unwillingness on the part of security officers to search women. In Iraq, Al-Qaeda repeatedly exploited a cultural taboo against the searching of women, allowing their female suicide bombers to pass through checkpoints without being searched. So, it really is about striking a balance. In our case, as mentioned, male officers will only be allowed to search a woman in very narrowly defined circumstances. First, the officer must reasonably suspect that the woman is involved or has involvement in a terrorist act. Second, the officer must believe in good faith that the terrorist act is imminent. Third, the officer must believe in good faith that the search cannot be made within a reasonable time by a relevant officer who is a woman. The rationale, as explained, is that time is of the essence in such situations and it is where any delay could mean loss of lives.”
“The victim’s preference and his/her composure or state of mind at the time of statement-taking will be taken into account by the investigator in deciding on the appropriate mode of recording. For sexual crime victims, their cases are handled by specialist investigation officers who are trained in victim care. Mr Patrick Tay asked a question not exactly in relation to VRI, but related – whether we should review the rule which allows for a statement made to a Police officer ranked Sergeant or above, to be admitted in evidence. While there may be more officers, including newer officers, who hold at least the rank of Sergeant today than before, it would be mistaken to take that as a lowering of the standards expected of officers of that rank. The Police have rigorous training programmes and internal guidelines in place to ensure that anyone with the rank and authority to take statements does so with the highest level of competence and professionalism. Next, I move on to the computer-related powers of investigation. Mr Desmond Choo supported the enhanced powers but expressed the hope that they would be exercised with care. I would like to assure the Member that these powers exist only to facilitate criminal investigations. The Police will take into account the nature of the cases and the requirement for the information, before issuing any order under section 39. Mr Louis Ng asked for clarification of the rationale behind the amendment which allows a male officer to search a woman suspected of a terrorist act and what safeguards there are to ensure that searches are made with strict regard to decency. There is a well-recorded history of the use of women in terror attacks. Some have been coerced into this role, but others have volunteered.”
“There is a need to allow the law enforcement agencies sufficient time to train the investigation officers, to study the lessons of the pilot and then prepare the necessary facilities for VRI of victims. The Prosecution, members of the Criminal Bar and the Judiciary will also require time to acclimatise to the use of VRI evidence in Court. As Mr Kok Heng Leun has pointed out, there are complexities involved in video-recording of statements from victims. So, we will, therefore, carefully monitor the first phase of VRI implementation before deciding how to operationalise video-recording of statements from victims. Mr Patrick Tay asked whether there will be a set of guidelines to assist Police officers. The Police will develop their internal guidelines on this. As mentioned, the use of video-recorded statements for victims will only be implemented in later phases because of the complex issues that I have highlighted. Ms Joan Pereira asked whether victims will be given a choice of whether to give a statement via video or in writing and Mr Kok Heng Leun asked a similar question. Investigators will make a decision on the mode of taking the statement. However, the victim’s willingness or level of comfort with giving a video-recorded statement will be an important factor. So, we will work again with the stakeholders to decide how best to operationalise this sensitively, before implementing it in future phases. Ms Joan Pereira also asked what measures will be taken to ensure that victims are not disadvantaged if they are unable to recount the alleged incident because he or she is traumatised. Victims can indicate their preference not to give their statements on video if they are uncomfortable with it.”
“In deciding to exercise any power of investigation in the law, all criminal investigators generally consider the same factors and the ultimate aim is to advance the investigation, meaning to discover whether any criminal offence has been committed and the full facts of that offence, including those who committed it. So, in this context, it is not possible for me to give an exhaustive list but it would be a situation, I would assume, where the value of a video-recording would be high. For example, if you have an accused with a mental disability, when you record a statement and you see the transcript, the way the answers come out may make a lot of sense but when you look at the person, the facial expression, the way somebody who is mentally disabled or has some cognitive disability is responding, that tells you another picture. So, that is an example of the sort of scenario where the investigator might decide in this particular instance, before we roll out other phases, to do so. Let me now respond to questions on video-recorded statements of victims, which will only be implemented in later phases after we have further studied the operational issues. Mr Christopher de Souza asked for a clarification of how we will operationalise the video-recording of statements from victims. While the operational details are yet to be worked out, we expect that specially trained Police officers will take the video-recorded statements from such victims. We will consider whether to require the recording officer to inform the victim from the outset that the statement would be used in a Court proceeding when we develop the details of implementation in consultation with stakeholders. Mr Kok Heng Leun asked about the timeline of implementation for video-recording of statements from victims.”
“By way of a convex mirror installed in the room, the full extent of the room can be observed in the camera. The default angle to be used in Court, if any, would be the view focused on the interviewee, so that the demeanour of the interviewee may be seen in detail. The overview may be shown as well, if so directed by the Court, for instance, to verify the accuracy of sign language interpretation. Finally, Mr Louis Ng asked whether the Government would consider making video-recordings mandatory for all offences punishable with death or life imprisonment and for all vulnerable suspects, including juveniles, the elderly, the cognitively-impaired or the psychologically disordered, regardless of the alleged offence. We are not closed to the idea of extending VRI further to more offences and to vulnerable suspects. However, VRI is a complex initiative. Infrastructure needs to be put in place, as I have mentioned, the purpose-built VRI rooms and even specially designed tables so that persons in the room cannot be obstructed from being seen on camera. Investigating officers need to be trained as the entire statement-taking methodology changes because there will no longer be any written statement, if a VRI is to be recorded. It is, therefore, necessary that implementation will be done in phases to iron out whatever issues may become apparent and to ensure that there are adequate resources. We will consider this feedback as we expand the use of VRI in future phases. Ms Sylvia Lim asked for clarification on the circumstances that a Police officer will take into account in deciding that a video-recorded statement should be taken, in cases where it is not mandatory to do so.”
“Much of the infrastructure is modelled on the best practices in other jurisdictions which are experienced in the use of VRI. The technology adopted is also consistent with best practices to minimise litigation on the authenticity of the video statements. For example, the rooms for VRI are purpose-built to ensure video statements are of good quality, both for sound and picture, while ensuring that other operations are not compromised. These have been modelled on the purpose-built rooms used in Hong Kong for VRI. Mr Louis Ng asked whether the Government would consider the use of video-recording in the preliminary interviews or other exchanges prior to the statement recording. On a related note, Mr Kok Heng Leun expressed concerns about interactions between the Police and the suspect outside of the interview. There would be various conversations between the Police and the accused persons from the time of arrest until statement taking and it would not be possible for officers not to have any conversations throughout. However, it would not be feasible to record every exchange that officers have with the accused person and, really, the primary intent of the interview is to take that person's statement. So, the video-recording will form the basis of the statement. Mr Louis Ng also asked whether the Government would consider requiring the video footage to show both the suspect and statement taker, as well as the full extent of the space in the room, and Mr Kok Heng Leun expressed a similar concern on capturing the suspect’s demeanour accurately. There will be two cameras mounted in the room, one of which focuses on the interviewee and the other captures an overview of the entire room.”
“Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked about copies of the videos and why they are not given to Defence Counsel and how many times the Defence will be able to view them. The copies of the video-recorded interviews will not be handed over to Defence Counsel as video-recorded interviews may be leaked; or they may be lost or misplaced. So, this is really to make sure that there is a safeguard against the video-recordings being misused. However, instead of handing over a copy of the video-recorded interview, Defence Counsel would be able to view the recording at an approved place any number of times. A copy of the transcript of the recording would also be extended to the Defence during the CCD process and it was felt that an undertaking would not be sufficient for this purpose because, for example, there are some people who are unrepresented and an undertaking by an unrepresented accused person with no professional responsibilities may have a limited deterrent effect. And if the worse happens and if, let us say, the video is leaked for some reason, punishing the lawyer or party responsible will not reverse the harm. There are also the consequences of what happens if the video is distributed on the Internet because the impact is widespread. With VRI victims, are leading questions allowed? The answer is that investigators should not be barred from asking leading questions because they are not legally trained and the procedural rules should not be introduced at this investigation stage where really the aim is to find out what happened. The Judge can view the recording and come to his or her own conclusions about reliability. Mr Kok Heng Leun was concerned that there should be sufficient safeguards to ensure the integrity of the video-recorded statements.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken on the Bill, as well as for their support, by and large, for the amendments. There are some clarifications or queries that have been raised and I would like to address them. Let me deal first with video-recording of interviews (VRIs). Mr Patrick Tay asked how Police officers are being trained to take video-recorded statements. Mr Desmond Choo made a similar comment, whilst also suggesting training for Court officers. The Police have a training programme in place, for taking statements while on camera. They go through a four-day course which includes interview skills, administrative procedures in conducting a video interview and how to tackle equipment failure. This is vital for consistency in the way video interviews are conducted. Sufficient officers have been trained to implement phase one. As mentioned, the need to train officers in the skills and techniques needed to take video-recorded statements is one reason why VRI is being rolled out in phases. The Police will fine-tune the training programme, as they gain experience from the use of VRIs in phase 1. As for other users of the system, such as Court officers, we will be engaging the relevant agencies to ensure that everyone is familiar with the new scheme before the first cases involving VRI enter the system. Mr Patrick Tay also asked about the safeguards put in place to ensure that the security of video-recorded statements is not compromised. There will be safeguards in place to minimise the risk of loss of discs containing video-recorded statements. Viewing of the video-recorded statements by Defence Counsel will only be allowed at designated locations, where recording devices will not be allowed.”