K Shanmugam
Singapore
“Bank accounts are frozen when there is reason to suspect that the bank accounts are involved in illicit activities, including money laundering activities.”
“The Singapore Police Force does not track the requested data. Distinguishing artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content typically requires more detailed forensic examination which may not be necessary in every investigation and may also not be conclusive as to whether AI-generative tools were used.”
“The Building and Construction Authority’s Code on Accessibility provides baseline requirements for accessible and inclusive buildings. It stipulates a minimum width of 1.5 metres or 1.8 metres for primary accessible routes, depending on the building type.”
“The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licence) Rules under the Road Traffic Act set out the scope of the medical assessment required for motorists aged 65 and above who wish to retain their driving licences.”
“When a Police report has been made, the Police will investigate to determine if a criminal offence has been committed. If there is reasonable suspicion that a case is scam-related, the Police can direct online service providers to restrict Singapore users' access to the relevant online activity under the Online Criminal Harms Act.”
“Through intelligence sharing and coordinated enforcement actions, the cross-border operation disrupted a transnational drug trafficking syndicate and downstream drug trafficking activities, with the UK arresting seven persons so far and further investigations underway.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,552 lines we hold for K Shanmugam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 21 of 92.
“The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) is aware of the trend of drug traffickers exploiting social media, Internet communications and cryptocurrency payment platforms to facilitate drug trafficking. To address this, CNB actively cooperates with social network services, e-commerce businesses, Internet service providers and technology companies to detect and prevent the advertising of controlled drugs on such platforms. Drug activity facilitated by such closed communication platforms is a significant challenge and, unless the platforms cooperate, the challenges will continue to grow. CNB continues to conduct operations against syndicates and persons who use social media to facilitate their drug trafficking activities. For example, CNB conducted a series of operations from 18 to 19 April 2023 targeted at drug transactions conducted through specific applications. A total of eight suspected drug traffickers and 26 abusers were arrested and an assortment of drugs, including 228 grammes of cannabis, was seized. Further, the Ministry of Home Affairs will be introducing the Online Criminal Harms Bill this year to deal with online activities which constitute a crime in Singapore. For instance, the Bill will provide the levers to require online services to disable access by Singapore persons to illegal content constituting a drug-related offence.”
“The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) does not run drug screening programmes at schools. It does, however, actively engage schools and other stakeholders, such as parents and youth leaders, to provide them with anti-drug resources, including information toolkits and helplines. These aid them to identify and help youths who may exhibit early signs of drug abuse.”
“The Police do not track the average and median sentences of convicted cases.”
“The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) takes a very serious view of abuse and harassment of security officers. This is why we amended the Private Security Industry Act (PSIA) in October 2021 to enhance protections for security officers, with penalties pegged higher than if they were committed against general members of the public. These amendments have been in force since May 2022. On average, there were about 23 abuse or harassment cases reported each month in the first three months of 2023. This is higher than the average of 13 reported cases per month between 2018 and 2021, before the PSIA was amended. Anecdotally, there is higher awareness among security officers of the protections afforded to them. This has encouraged the officers, their employers and the Union of Security Employees to come forward to report incidents of abuse or harassment. Cases of harassment and abuse against security officers will continue to be treated seriously and the Police will investigate egregious cases. MHA will also work with our tripartite partners to reinforce the message that security officers should be treated with respect and the abuse of security officers will not be condoned. Perpetrators must know that security officers have both the protection of the law and the fullest support of the industry.”
“The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) officers at the land checkpoints are placed on a four-day shift cycle. Officers would work a 12-hour day shift, followed by a 12-hour night shift, and then take two days of rest. Under this shift pattern, ICA officers would work up to 42 hours per week, without including overtime work. The four-day shift cycle was introduced at Tuas Checkpoint and Woodlands Checkpoint in April 2021 and August 2021 respectively. Checkpoint officers may be scheduled for overtime work during peak periods, for example, school holidays, festive periods and long weekends. In the past five years from 2018 to 2022, officers at Tuas Checkpoint and Woodlands Checkpoint had performed an average of nine and 12 hours of overtime per month respectively.”
“In assessing the charges to proceed on and to take into consideration in a plea of guilt, factors which are generally taken into account by the AGC include the strength of the Prosecution’s case, the accused person’s level of cooperation with the investigation authorities and any relevant personal mitigating circumstances. In Mr Liew’s case, the Prosecution considered these same general factors in deciding to accede to the representations made by Mr Liew’s lawyers and accept the guilty plea by Mr Liew.”
“In November 2020, the Prosecution preferred two charges against Mr Liew under sections 177 and 193 of the Penal Code. These charges were for furnishing false information to the Police and giving false evidence in judicial proceedings, respectively. Mr Liew eventually pleaded guilty in March 2023 to an amended charge under section 182 of the Penal Code for giving a false statement in Court, instead of under section 193 of the Penal Code. The other charge against him under section 177 of the Penal Code for giving false information to the Police was taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. Members will be aware that it is normal for the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to proceed on amended charges – in this case, the section 182 charge – as well as to take other charges into consideration for the purposes of sentencing when an individual elects to plead guilty. This is regularly done; in fact, it is the norm in cases involving a plea of guilt. On this, I should highlight that the Member’s statement that the Prosecution did not press charges under section 177 of the Penal Code against Mr Liew is not accurate. It gives the impression that the charge was not before the Court or was otherwise withdrawn. The charge was, in fact, taken into consideration, meaning it would be considered for the purposes of sentencing. There was, therefore, nothing exceptional about how this case was dealt with. As for the Member’s suggestion that the Attorney-General make the reasons public, I should clarify that the Attorney-General had recused himself from this case. This was disclosed to the House previously. It was the AGC which decided to prefer charges against Mr Liew in the first place, and they carefully considered the facts.”
“The Cross Border Cash Reporting Regime (CBCRR) under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 is part of the anti-money laundering regime in Singapore. Under the CBCRR, travellers arriving or departing Singapore are required to report any movement of physical currency and bearer negotiable instruments exceeding S$20,000 or its equivalent in a foreign currency. This CBCRR reporting requirement does not extend to goods. In the past three years, for cases of money laundering that were investigated, we have not detected money laundering involving the cross-border movement of high value goods by travellers to circumvent the CBCRR reporting requirement. Besides CBCRR, our anti-money laundering regime includes reporting requirements for suspicious transactions. Entities and individuals, such as banks, gemstone dealers and precious metal dealers, who, in the course of their trade, profession, business or employment, suspect that any property is linked to criminal conduct, must lodge a suspicious transaction report with the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office. In addition, Singapore has built strong international partnerships to tackle money laundering, including through information sharing with our foreign counterparts.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you. My colleagues Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam and Minister of State Sun Xueling have answered the points raised by Members. I would just end by reiterating my thanks to the various stakeholders in the family justice ecosystem. And with that, Sir, I beg to move.”
“Overall, these changes will improve access to justice, especially for self-represented parties, who, as I said earlier, are involved in the vast majority of maintenance enforcement cases. As Members can empathise, it is difficult to expect parties to move on when maintenance obligations are breached, especially if the breaches occur repeatedly. Such breaches can also spur retaliatory action by the other side and pull both parties further apart. For example, an applicant with care and control of the children may be tempted to withhold access to them, if the respondent does not make timely maintenance payments. These disputes that linger and spiral long after the divorce proceedings can worsen the anguish for the parties and their children and also take a toll on those around them. With the MEP, we hope to change a bit of this and make the post-divorce journey slightly easier. As I conclude, Sir, I would like to thank the FJC judges, Court staff, the Family Bar, academics, our social service partner agencies and other stakeholders for working with us on these reforms. We hope to continue to work with all of these partners to shape our family justice system to achieve more positive outcomes in protecting, restoring and healing families. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“If a respondent defaults on the SPO with no good cause shown, he may be sentenced to imprisonment. The MEP also provides a more streamlined process for enforcing maintenance payments, where a respondent defaults on such payments shortly after an SPO expires. There is one further area of change to the maintenance enforcement process, which is not shown in the infographic. Under the existing law, an applicant who suspects that a respondent intends to dissipate, or has dissipated assets to frustrate the maintenance claim, can apply for an injunction or a clawback order. However, the applicant will likely face evidential difficulties in proving the respondent's intent to dissipate property specifically to frustrate a maintenance order. To address this, we will create a rebuttable presumption of the respondent's intent to dissipate. Under the proposed changes, this presumption will be raised if the applicant can show an impending or relevant dissipation, depending on whether an injunction or clawback order is sought and that the impending or relevant dissipation, as the case may be, will or did frustrate the enforcement of the maintenance order. With these changes, the burden is on the respondent to prove that he did not intend to frustrate the maintenance claim. This will, hopefully, deter parties from circumventing maintenance orders through the wilful dissipation of assets. What do we hope to achieve with these changes? Primarily, three things: one, stronger deterrence against non-compliance with maintenance orders; two, more sustainable maintenance outcomes for families with genuine financial difficulties; and three, easier process for enforcement of maintenance orders when they are not complied with.”
“This will relieve the party asking for maintenance – the wife – from having to take on the burden of getting the facts, spending a lot of money on legal fees and, hopefully, it will also reduce the amount of effort a wife has to put in to get maintenance. The Court will take into account the MEO's report when deciding on the application. The Court can vary any maintenance order, taking into account the financial position of the parties. Where the parties have not settled and the Court orders the respondent to pay maintenance, the Court must make what is known as a Show-Payment Order (SPO). The SPO will usually be for a period of six months and it will require the respondent to show to the Court, at specified future intervals, that he or she has made the requisite payments. When making the SPO, the Court must generally also specify a term of imprisonment that the respondent may be liable for if the respondent breaches the SPO. This continued monitoring, coupled with strong deterrence, should reduce repeated defaults in at least a fair number of cases. With the information provided by the MEO, the Court will also be better able to make more targeted and effective enforcement orders to recover arrears – for example, an order for attachment of a debt – and can do so without the applicant having to apply separately, or specifically, for such orders. At the post-hearing stage, the MEP caters for several possible scenarios of default. I will not cover these scenarios and the consequences of default specifically. The details are in the infographic that has been handed out and, of course, in the Bill. But Members will see that, in general, the consequences for failing to show proof of payment, in accordance with the SPO, are immediate and serious.”
“Members may also access the handout through the SG Parl MP mobile app. Let me now take Members through some aspects of the MEP. An application to enforce a maintenance order can be made online. At this stage, the applicant can also directly apply online for financial assistance, allowing such help to be given as early in the process as possible. After this, the parties must submit documents on their financial circumstances to the MEO. That could include payslips, bank statements. If the information is insufficient, the MEO may seek information from the parties, banks, third parties, some of whom will be prescribed and these would include Central Provident Fund (CPF), Housing and Development Board (HDB), Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), Singapore Land Authority (SLA), Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Central Depository (Pte) Limited (CDP). This is a major step and a game changer. This power will be subject to safeguards, including restrictions on the use of information obtained by MEOs and, in some cases, requiring MEOs to obtain a Court order when seeking information from third parties. With the MEO’s fact-finding powers, the MEOs and the Court will be better able to distinguish between respondents who cannot pay and those who refuse to pay. For the former, the MEOs will be able to refer them to Social Service Offices for financial assistance and other support. After the fact-finding is completed, the parties will have to attend conciliation sessions with the MEO, who can recommend solutions and facilitate settlement. The MEO will report to the Court on the parties' financial circumstances and the conciliation sessions.”
“A key part of the proposals is the establishment of a new unit of Maintenance Enforcement Officers (MEOs). MEOs will be appointed by the Law Minister and their functions will include the following: one, they can conduct fact-finding on the parties’ financial circumstances; two, they can refer suitable and needy parties to financial assistance and other forms of support; three, they can conduct conciliation sessions and facilitate settlements between the parties; four, they can submit the information gathered from the fact-finding and conciliation sessions to the Court. With your permission, again, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute an infographic, which will set out the workflow of the new MEP?”
“In the White Paper on Women’s Development, which was issued in 2021, the Government recognised maintenance enforcement as a key challenge for women in vulnerable situations, and the Government committed to simplify and strengthen the enforcement process and minimise the need for repeat applications for enforcement. If you look at the issues, first, there are limited means of obtaining information on the parties’ assets and means. This makes it difficult to distinguish between respondents who cannot pay maintenance and those who simply refuse to pay because the information is not fully in. And this then often leads to a second problem, which is repeat non-compliance. For respondents who refuse to pay, the Court may find it difficult to make more targeted enforcement orders because it does not have the full information on their assets and means. When the Court processes provide for applications and getting this information, actually getting it into Court can be a challenge at times. And for respondents who cannot pay, they just do not have the money and the Courts keep making the orders, they will simply continue to miss maintenance payments, without some other form of intervention. Again, it does not help anyone. Third, the process can be time-consuming, resource-intensive and difficult to navigate, especially for self-represented parties. So, under this Bill, what are we trying to do? We are creating a new Maintenance Enforcement Process – I will call it MEP – to address these issues. The MEP will seek to strengthen deterrence against respondents who refuse to pay; and it will try and facilitate more sustainable outcomes for respondents who genuinely cannot pay and it will try and increase access to justice for applicants, especially those who are self-represented.”
“Following her divorce, she had care and control of the parties’ two young children; her ex-husband was ordered to pay child maintenance at $1,500 a month. Two years after the divorce, Mdm A had not received any maintenance payments, though she had taken out enforcement proceedings. She was left to support her two children and elderly parents alone. This is how she described her frustrations in an email that she sent to me, and I quote: “Monies have to be spent each [time] an individual seeks legal advice; monies that most ex-spouses can ill-afford. Perhaps this is why most give up the fight, because they can no longer afford to pay for another Court hearing and receive another ruling that will not be enforced.” The second case, I will call the lady Mdm B. Like Mdm A, Mdm B also had care and control of the parties’ two young children, and her ex-husband was ordered to maintain her and the children at $1,500 per month. But for five years, from 2017 to 2022, Mdm B did not receive any payments from her ex-husband, save for a one-time payment of $50, even after she had filed multiple enforcement applications. For his breaches, the ex-husband was sentenced to prison, one to two days each time, but he still did not pay, despite having the means to pay. By 2022, the child maintenance arrears, accumulated over 61 months, was a total of $91,000. So, how did Mdm B cope? She coped single-handedly to support her children through primary school and borrowed from friends and neighbours. What I have just described for Mdm A and Mdm B is the unfortunate reality for some. It arises because some husbands just refuse to pay and I am referring to those who can pay but would not pay. It is quite separate if they just cannot pay. I will come back to this later.”
“Members may also access the handout through the SG Parl MP mobile app. Let me now turn to the Bill, specifically as it relates to the enforcement of maintenance orders. I will explain, one, the need for change; two, the key changes that we are proposing; and three, what we hope to achieve. Over the years, we have progressively refined the maintenance enforcement framework. This includes introducing new sanctions against maintenance defaulters, such as mandatory financial counselling, community service orders and credit bureau reporting. Nevertheless, we still see a fairly high number of cases of non-compliance with maintenance orders. Before COVID-19, from 2017 to 2019, there was an annual average of 2,700 applications to enforce maintenance orders. And 15% to 20% of these were repeat applications made within the same year. Some applicants made three to four applications to enforce the same maintenance order within a year. When you see these numbers, you can understand that behind these numbers, there are also anxiety, frustration, other real-life consequences. Especially for the applicants – they are usually women, struggling with supporting the children, their jobs, while not getting any maintenance. Members have given voice to these concerns before. They include Ms Jessica Tan, Dr Tan Wu Meng and others who spoke about this. Single parents struggling with job stress, caregiving, other responsibilities and they need to take time off work to attend enforcement hearings. Some bring their children to the Court hearings because they do not have alternate care arrangements. At this point, I think it is useful for me to share the facts relating to two cases, as illustrations. The first, I will refer to one of the parties as Mdm A.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.” Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a joint Bill by the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF). Conceptually, it proposes changes in two areas: one, on the enforcement of maintenance orders; and two, on Court proceedings and procedure in the Family Justice Courts (FJC). I will speak on the first area and my colleague, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu, will cover the second. Minister of State Sun Xueling will then touch on support for families undergoing divorce from the MSF perspective. Sir, to better understand the changes proposed in this Bill, I think it is useful, first, to consider the approach to family justice that we take here. Family disputes are not like other kinds of disputes. They often involve a lot of emotions, psychological wounds and vulnerable parties, particularly children. You contrast that with the usual litigation process which generally pits the parties as adversaries and looks to the past to determine who was right and wrong. If you apply that kind of approach to family disputes, I think the tendency will often be to deepen the rift between the parties and it could overlook the well-being of the children who are caught in the middle. So, in Singapore, for some time now, we have taken a modified approach to family disputes, focusing on Therapeutic Justice. The approach tries to get the parties to reach a common ground and move on with their lives. The changes we have made over the years reflect this approach. With your permission, Sir, may I ask that the Clerks of Parliament distribute a handout on some of these changes?”
“Sir, I do not keep track of whether my Ministry reaches out to media to find out. What we do know and what is factual, is that we issued a statement categorically rebutting the report, and the person who was supposedly quoted has written to us to say all these things.”
“Different criteria may apply to different applicants, depending on their background and circumstances. For example, an applicant applying as a spouse of a Singapore Citizen will be considered differently from someone applying on the basis of having stayed in Singapore for a period of time and contributed to employment creation in Singapore.”
“Sir, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) does not collect information on the wealth or net worth of Singapore Citizenship applicants. That is not a primary criterion for assessment for Singapore Citizenship. There were recent media reports that said that a researcher based in South Africa had estimated that 3,500 high-net-worth individuals were due to get Singapore Citizenship in 2023. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued a statement on 25 April 2023 stating that the reports were highly misleading and had no credible basis. We do not know how the researcher had arrived at these figures and the grant of Singapore Citizenship for the rest of 2023 has not been decided yet. After our statement was issued, the researcher wrote to MHA to say that he had been misquoted by the media. He said, and I quote, "This was simply untrue and not at all what was said in the interview." He said he had "never said anything about citizenship". He said that he did not track citizenship in his research and that his projection referred to high-net-worth individuals moving to Singapore in general, and most of them may be expatriates and work transfers, that is, not necessarily persons who applied for and became citizens. As mentioned in MHA's statement on 25 April 2023, having high net worth does not guarantee Singapore Citizenship. Each Singapore Citizenship application is assessed on a broad range of factors, which include the ability to contribute to Singapore, the number of jobs that the applicant or his business may be able to create in Singapore, the special skillset and/or education that the applicant may possess, the applicant's family ties to Singaporeans, the ability to integrate and the commitment to sink roots in Singapore.”
“For the Member's understanding, I cleared the speech with the highest levels of the Cabinet.”
“Indivisible Security is, I think, best characterised as a concept that is invoked in international relations. And I pointed out that the concept of Indivisible Security, in some form, has been invoked by both Russia and the United States. But that does not make it a principle of international law. And it is not set out in the UN Charter. In addition, in my speech, I shared diverse views on how the situation in Ukraine unfolded and the roles of the West, NATO and the Russian Federation. The result is that Ukraine is the unfortunate victim and its people are paying a terrible price.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will first start with the point of sovereignty. Self-determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as the non-recourse to the use of force are fundamental principles of international law. These principles are enshrined in the UN Charter, and 193 states are party to the Charter, including Singapore. Article 1(2) of the UN Charter states that one of the UN’s purposes is “[t]o develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace”. Article 2(1) provides that the UN is “based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members”. Article 2(4) provides that all Members “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state …”. Article 2(7) provides that “[n]othing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the [UN] to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state …”. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violates these basic principles of international law, including self-determination, sovereignty, territorial integrity and the non-recourse to use of force. In my speech that Mr Vikram Nair refers to, I think I said four times that the Russian invasion cannot be justified. Russia has invoked Indivisible Security as among the reasons for the invasion of Ukraine. And as I have said, Indivisible Security cannot give grounds for the Russian invasion. Indivisible Security is not of the same status as self-determination, sovereignty, or territorial integrity and the non-recourse to use of force.”
“As the physical features and biometrics of children aged below six are still developing and may not provide a reliable means of authentication, such travellers would require additional assistance at automated lanes. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) has since November 2022, catered for Special Assistance Lanes (SALs) at the passenger halls of Changi Airport to facilitate automated clearance of family groups of up to four persons, including children aged below six. ICA officers will be on hand to manually verify the children's identity. SALs will also be installed progressively at the land and sea checkpoints from the end of this year.”
“The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) regularly reviews the Fire Code, which stipulates the fire safety requirements for buildings in Singapore, such as the maximum occupancy load based on the usage and size of spaces in the building. The Fire Code also requires sufficient escape capacity, through exit staircases and doors, to be provided. Non-compliance, which could lead to overcrowding in a public building that might render escape in the event of a fire difficult, is a fire hazard offence under the Fire Safety Act. For larger buildings with a gross floor area of over 5,000 square metres or an occupancy load of more than 1,000 persons, the respective building owners are also required to appoint a Fire Safety Manager (FSM) under the Fire Safety (Fire Safety Manager) Regulations. The duties of the FSM include ensuring that the occupancy load in the building does not exceed the capacity prescribed under the Fire Code. The FSM also conducts fire drills for the occupants at least twice a year. The SCDF takes enforcement action when building owners are found to have breached the Fire Safety Act and its regulations. It will require the owners to take rectification actions, failing which they may be prosecuted in Court. In addition, some buildings which are iconic or have high public footfall are designated as Special Infrastructures, or Special Developments in the case of new buildings, under the Infrastructure Protection Act. The owners are then required to incorporate security measures, such as Closed-Circuit Televisions and vehicle barriers, upfront in the design of such new buildings before they are constructed, or for existing buildings, when they undergo certain works.”
“The Emergency Video System operators are the same pool of operators who answer and process "999" and "995" calls. The Operations Centres of the Singapore Police Force and Singapore Civil Defence Force each maintains a pool of operators with the ability to converse in Singapore's four official languages, as well as some dialects commonly used in Singapore.”
“The majority of noise complaints often arise from some issues between neighbours. Some arise from inconsiderate behaviour. Whatever the cause, noise issues can cause considerable disamenities. They have to be dealt with. The Government's view is that the issues should be addressed through a community-based approach, where community partners, the Government's social or municipal agencies, and grassroots leaders work together to resolve them, with some legal framework, to allow steps to be taken to deal with the noise nuisance. These are not issues that Police need to, or should, deal with. The Police will, however, respond to incidents where there are additional law and order concerns. For example, when the noise arises from fights or large congregations that pose safety and security risks. In such cases, Police will dispatch frontline resources to maintain law and order. Where criminal offences are disclosed, the Police will investigate and take appropriate actions.”
“There are thousands of vehicles every single day and there has been no issue so far. In this case, the driver was allegedly intoxicated and driving at high speed. We are now considering additional measures, including if the Observation Post can be shifted further away from the path of the oncoming vehicles, and whether more barriers need to be erected. We cannot emphasise enough that motorists must play their part to ensure road safety for themselves, as well as other road users. They must abide by traffic rules and directions given by officers and should never drink and drive. The cost is high, as this accident has shown.”
“The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) takes the safety of travellers and of our officers, including Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) working alongside us, very seriously. At the approaches to the land checkpoints, we have installed preventive road safety measures such as road humps to deter speeding. There are signages to remind motorists of the speed limit and to maintain lane discipline. Officers who are performing traffic control functions are deployed in pairs and are required to put on safety vests, use traffic wands and blinker lights to enhance their visibility to motorists. ICA also ensures there is adequate lighting of the roads, and we take firm enforcement action against those who breach traffic rules. The accident site was at the Observation Point, where APOs perform protective security functions, such as preventing unauthorised vehicles from entering or exiting the checkpoints. Preliminary investigations revealed that a 42-year-old Singaporean male driver was allegedly intoxicated and driving at high speed up the viaduct leading to Tuas Checkpoint. He allegedly lost control of his vehicle and crashed into the Observation Point area, hitting the drop arm barrier, concrete bollards and the 28-year-old APO on duty. At the time of the accident, the APO was wearing a reflective vest and a blinker. The APO sustained a severe head injury and the driver suffered lacerations. We are not able to share more as investigations are ongoing. We are very sad that a colleague working with us at the checkpoints is critically injured and remains unconscious. ICA and Certis CISCO are in contact with his family and will continue to provide help and support. As would be noted, the Observation Post was protected with a drop arm barrier and concrete bollards.”
“The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) will consider a waiver of the identity card (IC) or passport replacement fee in situations where the loss or damage was due to circumstances beyond the holder's control. From 2020 to 2022, ICA granted a total of 12,163 and 410 waiver of fees for the replacement of ICs and passports respectively.”
“We will continue to support law firms and lawyers’ efforts to leverage technology to improve the delivery of their services and better meet their stakeholders’ needs. We will further enhance the Legal Technology Platform to integrate it with public systems like eLitigation, LawNet, ACRA, and Sign with Singpass, and bring greater seamlessness to a lawyer’s day-to-day workflow. We will continue to maximise the potential and unlock the value of state properties, to meet Singapore’s social and economic objectives. We will pursue partnerships with stakeholders, experts and the public, such as the rejuvenation of Gillman Barracks, Yarrow Gardens, and Dempsey, to harness innovative ideas and business models and realise the potential value of our limited land and space. The Singapore Land Authority is developing the Digital Conveyancing Portal (DCP), following engagements with multiple stakeholders, including the Housing and Development Board, Urban Redevelopment Authority and other stakeholders involved in the conveyancing process, like real estate developers, conveyancing lawyers and law clerks. It aims to transform the current paper-based conveyancing process into a fully integrated and paperless one. We will continue engaging stakeholders and taking in feedback across the development phases to co-deliver a DCP that best meets the needs of the public and industry. MinLaw has been strengthening our legal system, developing our legal industry and improving access to justice. We will continue to engage our key stakeholders, strengthen the partnerships and trust built up over the years, and ensure that our policies remain relevant, to better realise our vision of "A Trusted Legal System; A Trusted Singapore".”
“To prepare our legal workforce for the future, the Steering Committee on the Reform of Legal Education and Training is reviewing the legal education and training required to develop our legal manpower. This will ensure that law students and lawyers continue to be well-equipped with the knowledge and skills they need for practice in the future economy. We will continue to strengthen Singapore’s position as a hub for legal and dispute resolution services, and harness the growth of the legal services sector across the world. We will build on our dispute resolution ecosystem and encourage foreign dispute resolution institutions to broaden and deepen their presence in Singapore. We will continue to establish and deepen relations with markets of interest, to capture opportunities for our Singapore institutions, law practices and lawyers. We will also build on the Singapore Convention Week and United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Academy to increase our mindshare and build connections to Singapore. We will also continue to build a forward-looking IP hub that creates value for the economy and provides good jobs for Singaporeans. To ensure that our IP regime remains relevant and continues to support innovative and creative enterprises, we have updated relevant IP legislation, such as the Copyright Act 2021 and the IP (Amendment) Act 2022. To support the development and use of Intangible Assets (IA) to create economic and business value, we will introduce the Intangibles Disclosure Framework to provide a consistent basis for businesses to disclose and communicate details of their intangibles and set up an enterprise-centric online platform to provide companies with better access to professional IA/IP services.”
“These efforts aim to reduce acrimony in family proceedings, promote healing in family relationships, and safeguard the welfare of children. The establishment of the Public Defender’s Office (PDO) in end-2022, together with the expansion of coverage for criminal defence aid to the bottom 35% of households and covering most offences, was a significant milestone in our legal landscape. More Singaporeans and Permanent Residents can now have access to criminal defence aid. The decision to establish the PDO, which institutionalises public defence within the criminal justice system, was done after extensive consultations with the Law Society of Singapore and the Criminal Bar. We will continue to improve access to justice and legal services for all Singaporeans. We are working with the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and the Ministry of National Development to enhance the Community Dispute Management Framework. We will be mandating mediation for certain types of disputes between neighbours and enhancing the effectiveness of proceedings in the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals. We will also continue to partner key stakeholders like Pro Bono SG on initiatives to improve access to justice, such as the set-up of a one-stop portal, for the public to access legal information. Singapore must continue to remain open to the world and find new ways to stay relevant and maintain trust. We are working with the Law Society of Singapore to explore industry-wide secondment and exchange programmes to provide our law practices and lawyers with opportunities to gain experience and expertise in growth domains and in key markets.”
“Amidst intensifying geopolitical tensions and increased economic uncertainty, Singapore must maintain a high level of trust in our Rule of Law and our legal institutions. The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) will work closely with our partners, stakeholders and the public to strengthen our legal system, enhance access to justice, optimise the use of our limited land resources and support Singapore’s economic development. A strong Rule of Law is a fundamental pillar of a trusted government. We will press on with efforts to enhance trust and relevance, and improve accessibility of our legal system. We will proactively steward legal reforms to meet evolving societal needs, while ensuring that our processes are up-to-date, efficient, and effective, such as by becoming a Party to the Hague Service Convention, which can help Singapore litigants with the effective service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil and commercial matters. We will also uphold multilateralism and a rules-based international order by deepening engagements with international organisations. Singapore recently joined the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, a leading intergovernmental organisation that develops international treaties and standards in commercial law. We passed the Courts (Civil and Criminal Justice) Reform Act 2021, which empowered the Courts to conduct remote, asynchronous and paper hearings in a flexible manner. This reduced the costs of litigation and improved convenience for Court users. In the area of family justice, we are working with key partners, such as the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Family Justice Courts, to make family legal proceedings simpler and more efficient.”
“SCDF is enhancing the Community First Response framework through leveraging technology to improve response to cases via SCDF’s myResponder App, and will be installing fire extinguishers at HDB lift lobbies to equip the community to respond to minor fires. SPF has rolled out the Community Watch Scheme, which seeks to build an informed and vigilant community. The Central Narcotics Bureau, together with the National Council Against Drug Abuse, has broadened its community outreach through collaborations with various organisations and enhanced training for volunteers and advocates under the A3 (Anti-Drug Abuse Advocacy) Network. SPS and Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) will better support the rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-offenders by expanding collaborations with community partners to help ex-offenders through training and employment assistance. To enhance ex-offenders’ career prospects, YRSG has shifted from a training and job placement model to one that emphasises skills for long-term career development, through career coaching, partnerships with stakeholders, and enhanced access to career resources. Given the rising volume and complexity of transnational crimes and security threats, including scams and terrorism, it is imperative we work more closely with the international community. We will strengthen our bilateral relationships, and work constructively with and through multilateral organisations such as the International Criminal Police Organisation (INTERPOL), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the United Nations. With the support of Singaporeans, the Home Team will strive to keep Singapore a safe and secure home for all.”
“SCDF has been enhancing its firefighting operations with its fleet of unmanned ground vehicles. We are also trialling UAVs which can be operated remotely from a central command and control centre. This way, SPF and SCDF commanders can receive visuals of the scene even before officers arrive, allowing them to better plan their response. Advancements in technology will change the way the Home Team operates. To prepare our officers for evolving job roles, we will continue to invest heavily in their training, particularly in the area of digital technologies. The Home Team Academy will strengthen the Home Team’s training and learning ecosystem, such as by further developing and deploying systems for effective and realistic simulation training. Home Team officers deal with stressful situations as part of their work. We will continue to strengthen resilience and stress management, and foster a culture of support for the mental health and well-being of officers in the Home Team. The spread of radical ideology online has fuelled the self-radicalisation threat in Singapore, especially for susceptible young individuals. Public vigilance and preparedness through the SGSecure movement continues to be a key pillar of our defence. We will continue to engage neighbourhoods, workplaces, and schools to sensitise, train and mobilise our community to play a part to prevent and deal with any terrorist attacks. A vigilant and discerning public is our best defence against scams. MHA has launched a new national anti-scam campaign to encourage the public to act against scams. We will launch a Scam Public Education Office to drive and expand our outreach and communication efforts. Our networks of volunteers and advocates are critical to amplifying the Home Team’s effectiveness.”
“We will strengthen the ability of our law enforcement agencies to deal with money mules who assist in the laundering of scam proceeds and to curb abuse of Singpass credentials to perpetrate scams. We will also introduce the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act, to encourage moderation and tolerance among different racial groups, and to signal the overriding importance of racial harmony to Singapore. The Home Team will continue to leverage technology such as data analytics, robotics, and unmanned systems to increase operational effectiveness, reduce operational risks, and enable Home Team officers to focus on higher value tasks. The Immigration & Checkpoints Authority’s New Clearance Concept (NCC) automates passenger, conveyance, and cargo clearance. In the near future, all residents, long-term pass holders, and departing visitors will be able to clear immigration without needing to present their passport. NCC will leverage data analytics and artificial intelligence to enhance detection of anomalies and security-sensitive items in conveyance and cargo clearance. The Singapore Police Force (SPF) is planning to expand camera coverage across Singapore and leverage video analytics to enhance sense-making. The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) is trialling a first-of-its-kind system – Prison Automated Screening System (PASS) – to automate urine sample collection and testing. This improves efficiency and accuracy, and also requires fewer officers for supervision. SPF and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) are already deploying unmanned systems in various operational settings. SPF uses robots to augment Police patrols and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for crowd management and search operations.”
“The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and its Departments work as one Home Team to keep Singapore safe and secure. To fulfil our mission, we regularly update our laws, leverage technology extensively to enhance operational effectiveness, train and develop our officers for emerging challenges, and build partnerships with the public and international community. Singapore remains one of the safest countries in the world. In 2022, we were ranked first in Gallup’s Global Law and Order Report, for the seventh time since 2015. To continue keeping Singapore safe and secure, we need to address significant and emerging threats. First, terrorism continues to be a pressing and real threat. Second, criminal syndicates are making sophisticated use of technology to operate across national boundaries, resulting in notable increases in online scams and cybercrimes. Third, psychoactive substances and more liberal attitudes internationally towards drug use pose challenges to our efforts to keep Singapore drug-free. Furthermore, we must continue to safeguard Singapore’s social cohesion, in particular our racial and religious harmony, which has anchored our country’s peace and progress. We will update our laws to deal with emerging threats. We have consolidated gambling-related legislation under the Gambling Control Act, and formed the new Gambling Regulatory Authority, to enable a more holistic and coherent approach to gambling regulation. We have amended the Misuse of Drugs Act to introduce a new legislative framework for psychoactive substances. In the near term, we will introduce new legislation to better protect Singaporeans from online criminal activity, including scams and malicious cyber activity.”
“Sir, that is why — so, now we put aside KOM. The Member agrees with me that the names ought not to be released. I thank him for that. Let us move to the release of the names of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern. It is exactly on all falls with the Parti Liyani case and the various other illustrations of disclosure. I would invite the Member to go and read carefully what I have said. There are situations when you release – and I have explained fully why it was released – and no Member had an issue with that, other than Mr Leong.”
“And rightly so, because it is very wrong for people's names to be released after the agencies have already concluded that they cannot be charged. Sir, unless you are minded to allow a re-ventilation of matters that we have gone through over and over again, may I ask that that be treated as the end of my Statement? Unless Mr Leong has something new.”
“Sir, point of order. The Member is repeating. I have asked him. I have put it on the table. If you say this is the principle, I will tell the Police, please consider releasing. He says that is not the principle.”
“Thank you. Now we know what the facts are.”
“I am prepared to consider and ask Police to reconsider, if the Member says that is the principle and should apply to all future cases.”
“As I said, one person subsequently pleaded guilty in the United States – the legal counsel. Then, you assess, do you release his name alone and not the others? This is not a case of politicising these matters. If you apply it here, then you must be prepared that, in future, whenever some names have been leaked in the media elsewhere or whenever their names have been mentioned in some context, not as defendants, the Court does not express an opinion, their names are mentioned by some witnesses, is Mr Leong arguing for the principle – and I would like to hear from him – that in all such cases, as long as the names are mentioned by someone and are public, then when we investigate, even when we conclude that there is no case, we ought to release the names? Can I hear from him, through you, Sir?”
“Sir, I said a little bit more than that. But for Mr Leong's and the Members' understanding – I had explained some detail the differences, he does not deal with all the differences. But in the KOM case, the investigations had concluded. An assessment had been made that guilt could not be established beyond reasonable doubt in Court. No one was charged. To name the individuals who were investigated under these circumstances would be of prejudice to those individuals. The harm associated with naming someone when charges would not be pursued, must be weighed. I would ask Mr Leong and Members to think about this carefully. Are we saying that in future, if we decide that a case cannot be made out against some persons who have been investigated, let us be clear, are we saying that if a case cannot be made out, we ought to release the names simply because some of their names had been in the media or, in some other place? Are we saying that? Do Members really think it is right to accept the principle that simply because names have been published elsewhere, we proceed to release them here, even when the agencies have concluded that they cannot be prosecuted? If Mr Leong is saying that, let me know; if that is the principle that you are suggesting? This is a case, the KOM case, where the agencies have concluded, that they cannot proceed with the case. Five individuals were named in the Brazilian court documents. But I do not know if Mr Leong knows this – they were not the defendants in that case. And as far as I am aware, no views were expressed by the court that they had engaged in wrongdoing. And in these circumstances, the general policy of not disclosing the names of the individuals who had been investigated, applies. It applies to KOM, and it applies to anyone else.”
“Sir, I did say in my Statement that Mr Leong said this on 20 March, here. That is not in his Facebook post. And he withdrew that allegation, which is false, by saying he did not know the facts. As for the others, one of the problems with having a discussion with Mr Leong is that: he talks about KOM, I have explained that, I have explained the differences between KOM and here. And then he says, "Oh, but I have backed up" and he goes on to other things. Sir, on KOM, I have said what the differences are; and unless he can tell me which part he disagrees with, there is really nothing much more that I can say. And I suggest we leave at that, Sir.”
“Sir, he has withdrawn the allegation. And I did say – I think Member pays attention sometimes and he does not pay attention sometimes.”
“Sir, I have explained in some considerable detail the differences. Unless the Member has a specific query or disagrees with my explanation, I do not know how I can answer further. I mean, I have explained all the differences, why the case is different. In fact, his reason for saying that it is the same, one of which is completely false, and he has withdrawn it. So, if the Member has a specific reason for disagreeing with the differences I have pointed out, I would invite the Member not to make these allegations that people speak in this way or that way. Let us keep to the facts; do not be pejorative. Unless you can back it up.”
“But I explained in great detail why there is hardly any prejudice. In fact, no prejudice in this case.”