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 23 of 92.
“On the first point as to exactly what the lies were, I would invite the Member to read the Disciplinary Tribunal's judgment and the Court of Three Judges' judgment. The relevant extracts are also in Senior Minister Teo's answer as an Annex. When we give answers in Parliament, we expect Members to read them, and I do not think we want to waste Parliament's time with me going through that again. On the second point, can I invite the Member to make it clear? Is the Member suggesting that there is a connection between the Bloomberg interview and the disclosure in Parliament? Because we do not repeat rumours from outside. Is the Member suggesting that? I would like to know that before I answer.”
“That is right, Sir. A specific order under the CPC was not issued. The Police normally would not issue such an order. They would first contact, then speak with and then send the written document. And if a party says that they will cooperate, the Police would assume in good faith that that is how they will proceed. That is what was done and the next thing the Police heard was another email from the couple saying that they will not cooperate. But by then, they had already – as I said – essentially absconded from jurisdiction.”
“Which everyone would expect us to do anyway, because I have said in this House we will investigate these matters. So, what is the prejudice? But there may be other cases potentially where the prejudice could be a little bit more. So, we have to assess public interest and that is why we have Parliament and when somebody takes a different view on prejudice, we will have to answer the questions. And they will obviously be entitled to their full rights to give their version of events and they will be entitled to defend their position in Court.”
“I thank Mr Perera for that question. That is in fact the key point. In fact, one could say that that is the key point in making a decision on going public. And that is why you need to look carefully at the facts. So, if you look at the facts relating to Mr Liew and the Lees, what has happened? The High Court has said that, in the case of Mr Liew, perhaps in less clear language; in the case of the Lees, very direct language, which I have taken you through – that at least Mr Liew as well as the two Lees were not telling the truth. The investigation relates back to that very point on which the Courts have taken a view as to whether they lied or did not lie. That is why I said the prejudice is very marginal, if any. As for the other aspect of prejudice that people will think less well of them the fact that we repeat in this House what the Courts have already said about them, is not going to increase the cloud as it were. So, these are factors in the prejudice that you should take into account. Both the legal prejudice of fair trial as well as public perception prejudice, you should consider even before you release. You do not try and recover ground after that and shore up as it were. You make these calculations before – what is the extent of prejudice? And you release the information, but always bearing in mind, sometimes public interest may require disclosure, even if it means some degree of prejudice. So, that is an assessment and it is an assessment we have to make. In this case, in the case of the Lees, I have explained why I think the prejudice is pretty much non-existent because we are simply repeating what has been said and saying that the Police are investigating that matter.”
“Sir, I took some care to explain the difference between the KOM case and the case of Mr Liew and the Lees. As I understand the Member, he says that the KOM case is a case of public interest, people are interested to know their names, so why is there a double standard? Did the Member listen to the explanation on the difference between the KOM case and the case of the Lees and Mr Liew? Perhaps the Member can go into a little bit of detail, based on the explanation I have given on the differences and tell us, which part of the explanation he disagrees with before he alleges double standards. Get to the facts, I have set out what the differences are. Tell me which part the Member does not understand or disagrees with. And on his first question, did the Police issue a written order – they were given an email, they promised that they will come and agreed to give an interview. They then left the jurisdiction and they have said both to the Police and in public that they will not cooperate with the Police. They will not even come back into the jurisdiction. That is why I said they are essentially abscondees from justice. But, for the record, I have made it very clear why the disclosure here is consistent with the disclosure in the Karl Liew's case. And Sir, through you, I would also like to ask Mr Leong, if Mr Leong did not see any problem when Mr Liew's name was mentioned in similar circumstances – in fact, he took part in the debate and wanted a commission of inquiry. Why then this extraordinary concern suddenly about the Lees that he did not show for Mr Liew? And perhaps he can explain why his approach shows double standards?”
“However, if any Member feels that this general policy should be changed and that law enforcement agencies should name all individuals who are being investigated, regardless of the circumstances and even if they are not abscondees from jurisdiction, and even if no charges are likely to brought in the end, then please let me know. We can then debate that. I would be surprised if anyone says that. If everyone agrees that persons under investigations should in general not be named, then the only question is the circumstances under which nevertheless names will be disclosed. And I have explained some examples of when names have been disclosed. The fact that no one raised any issues with Mr Liew being named, or when names of other abscondees had been disclosed, shows that no one in this House took issue with this disclosure.”
“It is their choice whether they want to be fugitives from justice, or whether they come and explain why they say the Courts were wrong to say that they had lied. The case of Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited (KOM) is quite different. It does not fall within the different examples I have set out. Members may not know this, but it was KOM which had made the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) report. The CPIB had conducted as thorough an investigation as it could with the information and powers that it possessed. It turned all the stones it could – and assessed the evidence together with the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). They concluded that they could not sustain any charges in Court: the conduct had taken place overseas, key witnesses are not available, key documents are not available. We received some information from Brazil, but it was not adequate to mount any criminal charge. There were no admissions which could be relied upon to cross the evidentiary requirements. The documents between the US authorities and KOM and the DPA, also do not meet the evidentiary requirements. They go some way, but they do not cross the threshold in respect of those who were being investigated. The CPIB, for good reasons, has the reputation for being able to ferret out the truth. But even the CPIB cannot get something out or proceed with charges when there are no documents or other evidence which cross the evidential threshold, and which can be used to break down the interviewees’ defences. In these circumstances, the general policy of not disclosing the names of individuals who have been under investigation, applies.”
“The statements in Parliament about Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern do not materially add to any cloud the couple may already be under based on what the DT and the Court of Three Judges have said. If the facts are different, then the position will be different. For example, say a name had been published in other proceedings and the Court had made some findings. But if our agencies are not able to prosecute the individual based on the earlier Court findings – because they assess that despite the earlier Court findings, substantial new facts have to be proven and that relevant evidence is not available and that relevant witnesses are not available, then there can be arguments both ways, on disclosure, and an assessment has to be made on the specific facts and a judgment has to be made. But the cases of Mr Liew, and the Lees are quite different; and as I have said in the case of the Lees, they have also absconded. I can tell Members that there is another case where the highest Court had made observations that a couple of persons had lied on oath. That matter is also being investigated. If there is a relevant question or issue about that matter, I can see that we will also set out the facts and say that Police are investigating. But just like with Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern initially, when investigations had first commenced, Police had not volunteered the information. But Police will respond with the facts if there is a need to – for example, if questions are raised in Parliament. Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern will have every right to provide explanations, on the matters being investigated if they eventually decide to do the right thing and cooperate with the Police.”
“And those facts were disclosed so that this House can have a full and complete picture, when a question had been asked which related to their conduct. If we cannot or should not answer the question in part or full, then, we would also have said so. In deciding whether we make public that investigations are ongoing, one factor which is considered is prejudice to the person being investigated. If the investigations show that the person is innocent or an assessment is made that his guilt cannot be established in Court, and if his name had been publicised earlier, a cloud would have hung over him until he was cleared. Thus, the general position is that names are not disclosed. Whether names should be released in a particular situation is a matter of judgment on what public interest requires. The examples I gave earlier illustrate the exceptions when names were made public. For example, if you take the case of Mr Karl Liew, what is the prejudice to him? In Mr Karl Liew’s case, the High Court had taken the view that he was not telling the truth. The prejudice to him in disclosing that he was under investigations for that finding of lying, is marginal if any and has to be weighed against the public interest at stake, in disclosing the facts when the matter is being discussed in Parliament. The same applies to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern. Members who are not lawyers may not know this but when a DT says that a person is guilty, it can only do so if it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the guilt. Likewise for the Court of Three Judges in disciplinary proceedings.”
“It was also accurate to give a complete answer to mention that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern had not cooperated with the Police investigations after saying that they would. The reasons for disclosing that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern were under investigation, are broadly similar to the reasons why it was disclosed that Mr Karl Liew was being investigated for perjury. Except that in the case of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern, they have, in addition, absconded from jurisdiction. In Mr Karl Liew’s case, we were discussing his conduct and the conduct of other family members and the Court’s findings in this House. We thought it necessary to disclose in that context that Mr Karl Liew was being investigated. He cooperated with the investigation; he has since been charged. Some Members may also recall – that I had said in this House when we were discussing the Parti Liyani case, that if any judgment or decision issued in the course of any legal proceedings contains findings, that there may have been perjury or other serious offences, that is something that we will take seriously. We mean what we say. I do not recall any Member expressing a different view, that such lying on oath in Court proceedings should not be taken seriously. That was the situation with Mr Karl Liew, and that is the situation with Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern. But as I said, with the added fact that they have also absconded. To summarise, the DT and the Court of Three Judges had said Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern were lying. They had been found to be dishonest and more. All of that is public. They have also essentially absconded from jurisdiction. We take this seriously.”
“In plain language, the effect of what they said is this: Mr Lee Hsien Yang may make untrue statements in public and in private whenever there is no legal penalty for telling untruths. His public and private statements cannot be relied upon to be accurate... We do not find their explanations credible." (g) "Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s explanations for the untruths in his posts were not credible...Mr Lee Hsien Yang knew the true facts. He admitted that some of his statements were inaccurate." (h) "Mr Lee Hsien Yang lied to the public about how the last will was drafted. He admitted to us that some of his statements were inaccurate. He said his public statements could be inaccurate because they are not sworn statements and thus, he may not look at them carefully... That was dishonest." The DT in essence said that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern had combined to mislead and cheat the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Police investigations were commenced, based on the findings of the DT and the Court of Three Judges. Police did not make public at that time in October 2021, that the couple was being investigated. A question was asked in this House earlier this month, about some public statements which had been made relating to Oxley and the judgments of the DT and the Court of Three Judges. Members can look up the Question and Answer. The Question required discussing the accuracy of those public statements in the context of the judgments of the DT and the Court of Three Judges, and it required dealing with the honesty or otherwise of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern. That there were ongoing Police investigations, arising from the findings of the DT and the Court of Three Judges, was in that context relevant and necessary to be disclosed, to give an accurate and full Answer.”
“" If you go to what the DT said at various parts: (a) "In essence, an elaborate edifice of lies was presented, both on oath (through Mr Lee Hsien Yang and the respondent’s affidavits and on the witness stand), and through their public and other statements (which were referred to and relied upon during the disciplinary proceedings). The affidavits were contrived to present a false picture. Several of the lies were quite blatant." (b) "Considered in totality, the respondent’s conduct was quite dishonest. Mr Lee Hsien Yang's and her conduct demonstrated a calculated attempt to: (i) ensure that Mr Lee executed the last will as quickly as possible without due regard for Mr Lee’s wishes, and (ii) hide their wrongdoing in having done so." (c) "Having procured the last will through these improper means, she and Mr Lee Hsien Yang then fabricated a series of lies and inaccuracies, to perpetuate the falsehood that Mrs Kwa Kim Lee had been involved in the last will, and hide their own role in getting Mr Lee to sign the last will and their wrongdoings..." (d) Mr Lee Hsien Yang and the respondent tried to explain away their conduct... Their explanations ranged from the improbable to the patently contrived to the downright dishonest." (e) "The respondent was a deceitful witness... Before us, she lied or became evasive whenever she thought it was to her benefit to lie or evade. Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s conduct was equally deceitful. He lied to the public, he lied to the Ministerial Committee, and he lied to us... He had no qualms about making up evidence as he went along. We found him to be cynical about telling the truth." (f) "...”
“The discussions surrounding No 38 Oxley Road are of significant public interest. One might say they are of at least as much interest as in the case of Parti Liyani, if the two can even be compared. The Oxley Road matter was debated extensively in this House, following the Ministerial Statements on the subject. The findings by the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) and the Court of Three Judges, in the disciplinary proceedings against Mrs Lee Suet Fern, and their findings on Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern are matters of public record. Both the DT and the Court of Three Judges found that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern had lied under oath. And let me remind Members of what both tribunals said. The Court of Three Judges said that Mrs Lee Suet Fern lied under oath, and I quote: (a) “...[W]e agree with and affirm the DT’s finding that Mr Lee Hsien Yang was not telling the truth when he said that he was the one who had forwarded the draft last will to the respondent. For the same reasons, we also agree with and affirm the DT’s findings that the respondent’s evidence on this issue, which echoed Mr Lee Hsien Yang's, was similarly untrue and to be rejected."; (b) The respondent also claimed in her Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief (AEIC) that after she received a draft last will from Mr Lee Hsien Yang...she did not even open it... [W]e agree with the DT that it is implausible and ultimately incredible..."; (c) [W]e note that after the disciplinary proceedings were initiated, the respondent adopted the position, which the DT rejected and which we too have rejected as false..."; (d) [T]he respondent did act with a degree of dishonesty in the disciplinary proceedings..." Mr Lee Hsien Yang lied under oath – "...Mr Lee Hsien Yang was not telling the truth...”
“The context in which the names had been published in other proceedings, the nature of those proceedings, the nature of the offences being investigated and the connection of the offences under investigations to the original proceedings and whether the agencies have taken the view that subsequent criminal proceedings are or are not possible – all of these are relevant. An assessment of all the facts and the context has to be made, in considering the public interest, as to whether to disclose the names. Yet another type of example, where names have been published, is the case of Chew Eng Han. He had been convicted of several offences. He was then arrested when attempting to flee Singapore. Police made public the arrest on the day he and his accomplices were arrested, and their identities were released. After investigations, Chew and one accomplice were charged. A fourth example relates to Alex Yeung. Alex Yeung stated publicly that his passport had been impounded, in respect of some conduct. Police then issued a media statement explaining that Yeung was assisting the Police but had not been arrested. A fifth example would be where Police are investigating a case and there is a lot of misinformation. Police might then make public the accurate facts relating to the case to dispel the falsehoods – and we have done that in the past. As can be seen, there are a wide variety of situations where it may become necessary to make public the fact that a person is under investigation, has been arrested or is assisting in investigations. We have to assess the facts and the public interest involved. The circumstances relating to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern straddle the first two examples that I have mentioned.”
“The general approach is that law enforcement agencies do not disclose the names of individuals who have been, or are being investigated. This general principle is subject to exceptions. One example when names have been disclosed is where the offender has absconded or left the jurisdiction while investigations are ongoing. For example, Members may recall the case relating to Pi Jiapeng and Pansuk Siriwipa. The couple was involved in a series of alleged cheating cases involving luxury goods. They fled Singapore last year, in 2022, while investigations were ongoing. The Police released their details. A second example would be where the facts which constitute the alleged offences and the individuals who may have committed the alleged offences, are already publicly known – for example, as a result of findings made by our Courts, and there is some public interest in disclosing that investigations are underway. Such disclosure has to be weighed against possible prejudice to the individuals concerned. A case in point would be where, following the judgment of the High Court in Parti Liyani’s case in 2020, the Police commenced investigations against her employer’s son, Karl Liew, based on the High Court’s observations that he had given dishonest evidence under oath. I informed this House of those investigations during the debates relating to the case. However, this does not mean that Police will automatically publish the names of the individuals under investigations, if their names had been made public in other, earlier proceedings.”
“Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will also deal with the question that has been asked by Mr Leon Perera, which is scheduled for a subsequent Sitting, on the same topic.”
“The Police do not track data on offences specifically by holders of Work Permits for performing artistes.”
“The Police do not track the number of cases of multi-level marketing schemes referred to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD). The Police only track cases that are investigated, that is, when there is an offence disclosed. Between 2018 and 2022, CAD investigated into one case involving possible offences under the Multi-Level Marketing and Pyramid Selling (Prohibition) Act (MLM Act). Investigations are ongoing. Ten individuals were convicted for offences under the MLM Act between 2018 and 2022, for investigations which took place before 2018.”
“Based on the information provided by the State Courts, which manages the State Courts' Integrated Case Management System (ICMS), the disruption to the ICMS in February 2023 was caused by a hardware failure at the centralised hosting centre for ICMS servers, which resulted in database errors. The database was eventually fully recovered, with no data loss. The State Courts are still investigating the incident. Once investigations have been completed, the State Courts will take steps to address the root causes. The State Courts are also pursuing various improvements to minimise the risk of future disruptions.”
“Frontline Police officers are trained to manage different situations, including how to identify and handle persons with mental health conditions. More than 3,000 of them have also benefited from the mental health awareness course offered by the Agency for Integrated Care. They undergo assessments and/or discussions to evaluate their competencies. The Police's internal Standard Operating Procedures do not contain diagnostic guidelines. Frontline Police officers are not trained nor expected to make any formal diagnosis of mental health conditions. Instead, they look out for signs of mental health conditions and may then consult or refer individuals with suicidal tendencies to the Institute of Mental Health's crisis response team for professional assessment.”
“Since the introduction of video recording of interviews (VRI) in 2018 for rape cases, the categories of offences for which it is conducted have since been expanded to include aggravated outrage of modesty, sexual assault by penetration, child abuse, maid abuse and non-capital drug-related offences. In addition, we conduct VRI for all cases at Police Land Divisions involving offenders with mental disabilities and young suspects, where no Appropriate Adult is available, regardless of the alleged offence. While VRI would, generally, be conducted for interviews of suspects or offenders for these expanded categories of offences, there could be instances where a VRI was not conducted due to operational exigencies. For example, there may be a need to record a contemporaneous statement from an accused person at the scene of the crime, when the person is arrested at the scene. We do not track data on the instances where VRI was or was not conducted.”
“Under the National Emblems (Control of Display) Act 1949, the penalty for the illegal display of foreign national emblems by an individual is a fine of up to $500 or imprisonment for up to six months, or both. The penalty is assessed to be sufficient for now and there are, currently, no plans to increase it.”
“Central fire alarm systems, as opposed to standalone smoke detector systems, provide early warning to all occupants within a building in the event of a fire, in order to facilitate mass evacuation. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks are designed such that each HDB flat is a fire compartment. Any fire outbreak within an HDB flat is usually contained within that flat and there has usually been no need to evacuate all residents from the block. Residents from adjacent flats are sometimes evacuated. Since June 2018, we have also required all new residential units, and existing residential units undergoing works which impact fire safety, to install Home Fire Alarm Devices. These are standalone smoke detectors that provide early warning of a fire to the occupants of the affected unit.”
“The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, generally, does not disclose the reasons for unsuccessful applications for immigration facilities. This had been explained in Parliament previously in 2016, 2018 and 2021.”
“The number of Work Permit holders (WPHs) charged with crimes for the past five years can be found in Table 1. These figures cover offences charged by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) which are under various legislation, such as the Penal Code, National Registration Act, Passport Act and Immigration Act. The Member’s questions on the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) should be properly directed to Pro Bono SG (PBSG), which administers CLAS. PBSG is a company limited by guarantee, with the Law Society as their sole member. The Government funds 75% of CLAS’ general operating costs, which goes towards staff salaries and overheads. The rest of the costs incurred, including to defend foreigners who need criminal legal aid, are supported by private donations. Foreigners who seek legal aid under CLAS must pass their means1 and merits tests. CLAS does not track foreigner applications by the type of permit held. Based on what PBSG has told us, the number of foreigners who have applied to and been offered aid under CLAS, for the past five years, can be found in Table 2. According to PBSG, the top three reasons for CLAS applications by foreigners being unsuccessful are: (a) the applicant failed the means test criteria; (b) the offence was not covered under CLAS; and (c) CLAS was unable to contact the applicant/the applicant’s family members to complete means/merits testing. Foreign applicants who do not qualify for legal aid may also seek help from the Community Justice Centre and other legal clinics run by various community, religious and voluntary welfare organisations.”
“Generally, upon receiving reports of fraudulent credit or debit card transactions and bank account withdrawals, the Police will commence investigations, including recording statements and gathering evidence. They will also ask the bank to deactivate the credit or debit card, or freeze the bank account, if the bank has not already done so. The specific steps taken by Police would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. As part of the Inter-Ministry Committee on Scams, we have worked with the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Standing Committee on Fraud of the Association of Banks in Singapore to implement measures to detect fraudulent transactions and safeguard banking channels. These include requiring additional customer confirmation to process significant changes to customers' accounts, notifying customers at the original registered mobile number or email address when there are changes to contact details, and putting in place an emergency kill switch for customers to swiftly freeze their bank accounts which they suspect may have been compromised.”
“The number of foreign spouses who took up Singapore citizenship from 2000 to 2022 averages at around 2,700 per year. The overall number of naturalised Singapore Citizens (SCs) is published annually. Thus, Singaporeans can see for themselves how many persons become SCs every year. The matter is also debated publicly. The number and regions of origin of foreign brides and grooms of SCs are also public and can be found on the Department of Statistics' website. We do not make public further breakdowns by specific countries. This is primarily because it could cause bilateral sensitivities with countries. That is not in our national interests. As regards foreign spouses, we require such foreign spouses to have been a Permanent Resident (PR) before he or she can apply for SC. When a couple decides to apply for PR or SC for the foreign spouse depends on their personal and family circumstances. For example, some couples might live overseas for many years before relocating to Singapore. In assessing their application for PR or SC, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) will consider several factors, including the length of marriage, length of residency in Singapore and other indicators of rootedness and ability to contribute to Singapore. Therefore, the length of time between marriage and when the foreign spouse obtains SC can vary greatly.”
“The Police do not – unless it is in the public interest to do so – generally make public information on whether individuals are being monitored for offences. The Government takes the same approach in respect of investigations or Police reports made under the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act 2021 (FICA).”
“The Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) takes a serious view of foreigners who overstay. The penalties for overstaying more than 90 days are a jail term of up to six months and a minimum of three strokes of the cane. ICA also takes strong action against persons who abet the offenders. Homeowners who are found guilty of harbouring immigration offenders may be sentenced to imprisonment of between six months and two years, or a fine up to $6,000, or both. ICA and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) conduct specific checks at the last known residential and employment addresses of foreigners who have remained in Singapore beyond the validity of their pass. ICA also conducts operations regularly against immigration offenders in general. It was during such an operation that the two Chinese nationals were detected and arrested. Employers and homeowners must exercise due diligence and ensure that a prospective foreign employee or tenant’s immigration status in Singapore is legal, before offering employment or renting out their premises. Checks should include ensuring that the particulars on the immigration pass or work pass tally with the passport, as well as verifying the validity of the pass through the ICA or MOM website, or MOM’s SGWorkPass app. In the last five years from 2018 to 2022, the median duration of foreigners who overstayed in Singapore and were arrested is about three months. Nonetheless, regardless of our measures, some may be able to evade detection and arrest. For these two particular cases, there are ongoing investigations into other individuals involved. We are unable to provide further information at this stage.”
“Under Regulation 11A of the National Registration Regulations, individuals who have received a new address label have to affix it on the identity card as soon as practicable. Those who fail to comply may be liable for a fine of up to $3,000, or imprisonment for up to two years, or both. Individuals who use an outdated address on their identity card to deceive others, or fraudulently or dishonestly induce them to do something which they otherwise would not have done, may be liable for the offence of Cheating under the Penal Code. If found guilty, they may be punished with imprisonment for up to three years, or a fine, or both. Those who furnish false contact information, including one's residential address, to an unlicensed moneylender, may be liable for an offence under Section 50 of the Moneylenders Act. Upon conviction, they may be liable for imprisonment for up to 12 months. Those who suspect their address is being misused should make a report to the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority or the Police for investigation.”
“The Member may refer to the Singapore Police Force's (SPF) Annual Scams and Cybercrimes Brief 2022, which was published on SPF's website on 8 February 2023.”
“For successful conviction under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (CDSA), the prosecution has to prove that the money mule had knowledge or reasonable grounds to believe that the monies transacted through his or her bank account are linked to criminal activity. Today, a large number of the money mules arrested by the Police cannot be prosecuted due to difficulties in proving their intent to facilitate the scams. The Ministry of Home Affairs is therefore looking to introduce new provisions in the CDSA, to make it easier to make out money laundering offences in such scam cases. We will provide more information when ready.”
“To further build capability for the public's emergency response, SCDF has been working with partners to increase the availability of AEDs and fire extinguishers in the community. Under the Save-A-Life initiative, SCDF has to date installed over 5,100 AEDs at the lift lobbies of HDB flats and private condominiums. SCDF will continue to work with the People's Association and NParks to expand this to even more condominiums, parks, and more public and private establishments. By end 2025, SCDF's target is to have one AED within a 250-metre reach in urban areas. For fire extinguishers, over the next five years, SCDF will work with HDB, Town Councils and Temasek Foundation to install one fire extinguisher at the lift lobby for every two HDB blocks. SCDF has also implemented the AED-on-Wheels Programme to tap on vehicle fleets of external organisations, and build a roving network of CFRs who are both trained in CPR-AED procedures and equipped with an AED to respond to an emergency. Since the programme's launch in 2015, SCDF has equipped 260 vehicles from four organisations – Strides, Grab, Comfort Delgro, and NinjaVan – with AEDs. We separately have 50 CFRs who are carrying AEDs on their own vehicles. This year, SingPost will be joining the AED-on-Wheels Programme, which will add another 25 vehicles to the network.”
“The myResponder app allows members of the public to register as Community First Responders (CFRs), and alerts them to cardiac arrest cases or minor fires, within 400 metres of their location. This enables these cases to be attended to quickly by CFRs, thereby improving cardiac arrest survival rates as well as allowing minor fires to be extinguished within the first few critical minutes. Between 2018 and 2022, CFRs attended to 7,670 cases through the app. Out of the 7,670 cases, 4,525 were cardiac arrest cases, and 3,145 were minor fire cases. The app also has a 995 emergency call widget which allows users to report emergency cases. However, all calls made via the 995 widget in the app will be received as normal 995 calls at the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) Operations Centre. SCDF does not distinguish whether the calls were made from the app, or via the 995 emergency hotline. To increase subscribers to the app and grow the pool of CFRs, SCDF leverages various community touchpoints. These include events such as the Fire Station Open Houses and Community Resilience Days organised by SCDF, programmes under the SGSecure movement, as well as events jointly organised with the Community Emergency and Engagement Committees in the residential heartlands. At these events, the public can learn skills such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), use of the Automated External Defibrillator (AED), firefighting, and first aid. The public can also sign up for the SCDF's Community Emergency Preparedness Programme conducted at the four SCDF Division headquarters. SCDF will encourage participants in these events and programmes to download the app and register as a CFR.”
“From 2018 to 2022, there were a total of 60 fires involving kitchen exhaust ducts in food and beverage establishments. The average duration between the fire incidents and when these ducts were last cleaned and maintained prior to the fire incidents is five months.”
“Mobile Speed Cameras (MSCs) are portable speed detection devices which can be easily deployed at different locations. Should speeding prove rampant at a particular stretch of road, the Traffic Police (TP) may consider deploying a fixed speed camera instead, if the terrain permits. The Member referenced the Police's Mid-Year Traffic Situation Report for 2022. The report found that the number of speeding-related violations and accidents increased in the first half of 2022, compared to the same period in 2021. The increase was partly due to the increase in traffic volume in 2022, with the easing of COVID-19 measures. The number of speeding-related violations, however, was lower than pre-pandemic. MSCs are part of the suite of enforcement tools adopted by TP, which includes fixed speed cameras, red-light cameras, as well as routine patrols by TP officers. TP will continue to monitor and assess the traffic situation, including whether stronger enforcement actions are needed.”
“To fight scams more effectively, we need to prevent and deter individuals from acting as money mules. Today, a large number of the money mules arrested by the Police cannot be prosecuted due to difficulties in proving their intent to facilitate the scams. In short, the issue is not with the penalties in our current laws, but our laws need to be enhanced to make it easier to make out money laundering offences in such scam cases. The Ministry of Home Affairs is therefore looking into amending our laws to strengthen our ability to deal with money mules. We will be introducing new provisions and penalties to the CDSA to impose obligations on individuals to exercise greater accountability and vigilance when transferring money on behalf of others. We are also looking at introducing new provisions to curb the abuse of Singpass. We will provide more information when ready.”
“Money mules who knowingly give up control of or sell their bank accounts or Singpass login details for the purposes of scams and money laundering activities will be investigated by the Police. They may be prosecuted in Court for offences under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Offences (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (CDSA), the Penal Code 1871 (PC), the Computer Misuse Act 1993 (CMA) or the Payment Services Act 2019 (PSA). Examples of offences for which these money mules may be liable include transferring the benefits from criminal conduct, cheating or the disclosure of a password for wrongful gain or any unlawful purpose. As each case is assessed on its unique facts and circumstances, the penalties for such cases vary. For example, a man was sentenced to nine months' jail on 10 January 2023 under the CDSA for selling his bank account which was later used in various scams. In another example, a man was sentenced to four weeks' jail on 25 January 2023 under the CMA for selling his Internet banking details to an unknown person, which was later used in love scams. Depending on the offences, the maximum penalties are as follows: (a) Under CDSA – for individuals, a fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 10 years or both; (b) Under PC – imprisonment for up to three years, or fine, or both; (c) Under CMA – a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment for up to three years or both, in the case of a first conviction; (d) Under PSA – a fine of up to $125,000 or imprisonment for up to three years or both. Those who sell their bank accounts or Singpass login details usually do so of their own volition, enticed by the commissions and monetary benefits. Money mules facilitate the perpetration of scams.”
“From 31 October 2018, when the Criminal Procedure Code (Reformative Training) Regulations 2018 was operationalised, to 31 December 2022, 473 persons sentenced to Reformative Training were given a supervision order. Of these, 201 did so upon reaching their minimum detention period. The remainder were, on average, released on supervision five months beyond their minimum detention period. To date, no trainees has served the maximum detention period of 54 months.”
“In such a case, the Police can only intervene if there is a threat of danger or violence or assault or something along those lines.”
“In such a case, the Police can only intervene if there is a threat of imminent danger or violence or assault or something along those lines. [Please refer to "Reviewing Police's Operating Procedures to Minimise Occurrences of Wrongful Arrest", Official Report, 7 February 2023, Vol 95, Issue 82, Oral Answers to Questions section.] [(proc text) Written statement by Mr K Shanmugam circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)] I wish to make the following factual correction to the reply given during the oral reply for Parliamentary Question Nos 5 and 6 at the Sitting of 7 February 2023. My reply should read as follows:”
“After the Report of the Committee of Privileges (COP) in Parliamentary Paper No 13 of 2022 was presented to Parliament on 10 February 2022, Parliament referred the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap before the COP to the Public Prosecutor (PP). The PP has referred the matter to the Police for investigations, which are ongoing.”
“We are reviewing the statutory and common law disclosure obligations in criminal cases and considering amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code. We will provide more details when ready.”
“The Ministry of Law has been studying possible reforms to the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1966. This has taken some time, due to resource constraints. We will provide further updates when the studies are completed.”
“Furthermore, given the relatively short distance (in many cases) between each hydrant, SCDF’s responding crew will generally be able to quickly tap on alternative water sources should the need arise.”
“Mr Gerald Giam1 had a related question scheduled for a future Sitting. I will address these questions together for a holistic reply. In the fire incident that the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) attended to at East Coast Road on 9 January 2023, SCDF responders were initially unable to remove the pit cover of the nearest fire hydrant. They immediately used the next nearest hydrant and established water supply within minutes. Despite the stuck pit cover, the firefighting operation was not affected as there was sufficient water from the fire engine’s internal water tank before the hydrant water supply was established. The pit cover of the nearest fire hydrant was subsequently removed and water was tapped from it to support the firefighting operations. In this incident, the pit cover was difficult to remove due to an accumulation of dirt and sediment around the seams of the pit cover. This may occur occasionally, especially after a period of wet weather. Prior to the incident, the affected hydrant was inspected by SCDF in December 2021 and subsequently by the Public Utilities Board (PUB) in March 2022. Singapore has a network of approximately 23,000 public hydrants. They are tested annually for serviceability. This hydrant would have been tested again within this work year, by March 2023. A typical test will include functional checks on the hydrant including the removal of the pit cover followed by the measurement of its water flow and pressure. These tests are in addition to the periodic hydrant inspection by the PUB. The annual fire hydrant testing regime is adequate in mitigating the risk of major defects between inspections.”
“The types of foreigners that can apply for a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) can be found on the website of the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA). These include spouses, unmarried minor children and parents of Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents. While ICA may ask questions about the applicant’s caregiving arrangements to make a holistic assessment of an application, ICA does not actively track the number of LTVP applications that are for the purposes of providing childcare or other care responsibilities.”
“The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) works closely with its international partners, through regular intelligence sharing and joint operations, to prevent illicit drugs from entering or transiting through Singapore. In 2022, CNB conducted 16 joint operations with its international partners to deal with drug syndicates operating in the region. Specifically on cooperation within ASEAN, CNB is a member of the ASEAN Airport Interdiction Task Force (AAITF) and ASEAN Seaport Interdiction Task Force (ASITF). The Task Forces provide a platform for ASEAN enforcement agencies to collaborate and interdict drug trafficking in the ASEAN region. There has not been any case of opium transhipment detected in Singapore for more than 10 years. There were also no seizures of opium in Singapore in the last five years. While opium abuse has not been prevalent in Singapore since the mid-1990s, opium is also used to produce heroin, which is currently the second most commonly abused drug in Singapore. CNB continues to maintain the intensity of its enforcement efforts against all drugs, including heroin, given the harms of drug abuse. CNB will monitor the situation closely with its ASEAN partners.”
“The Traffic Police do not track whether vehicles involved in accidents are car-sharing vehicles. Our traffic safety measures are aimed at reducing the rate of all accidents. The Traffic Police will continue to engage and educate motorists to practice safe driving practices and enforce the law.”
“Right now, the sense amongst them is one of concern on what liability may befall them for actions which they may take in the discharge of their duties. In summary, there are concerns with the judgment. We are now considering the next steps.”