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 26 of 92.
“Two, sexual acts committed by males against young persons, again, a serious offence regardless of consent. Three, sexual acts between two males committed in public that offend public decency will remain an offence. The maximum penalty for the first two offences is, in fact, more severe than the maximum penalty under section 377A and rightly so. This Government takes an extremely stern view against all non-consensual sexual offences and in respect of sexual offences against minors. The only thing that will no longer be an offence after the repeal is consensual, male adult homosexual conduct conducted in private. Such conduct does not raise law-and-order concerns. The time has come for us to remove section 377A. It humiliates and hurts gay people. Most gay people do not cause harm to others. They just want to live peacefully and quietly and be accepted as part of society – the same as any other Singaporean. They are our family, our friends, our colleagues. They deserve dignity, respect, acceptance. They do not deserve to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation. To a gay person, even if section 377A is not enforced, it is there, memorialised in the law, a sword hanging over his head, a daily reminder that every time he engages in private sexual activity, behind closed doors, in the sanctity of his bedroom, he is, nevertheless, a criminal. We have to ask, is it fair that gays have to live in this way? This is not something we should accept, even if we personally disagree with homosexuality. So, I will say – let us start to deal with these divides, heal these divides, remove their pain. Section 377A should no longer be in our books. Repealing section 377A makes it clear that gay people are not criminals.”
“But if we forced the issue, it would divide and polarise our society. It would lead to even less space for the gay community in Singapore. Therefore, it was better to let the situation evolve gradually. It was a compromise. It was better and it has worked for Singapore in the past 15 years. We managed to maintain some harmony while many other societies have become deeply divided on these issues over the same period. Let me now move on to explain why we propose to repeal section 377A at this point. There are two main reasons. First, it is the right thing to do and society is more ready now for the repeal. Second, there is a significant legal risk that the Courts will strike down section 377A if we left it alone and did nothing. Let me deal with the first reason. In some religions, homosexuality is considered a sin. As Members heard earlier, some sins are crimes, but not every sin is a crime. Our position in Singapore is, for a conduct to be a crime, there should, generally, be a public order or public interest issue. It is broadly similar to the position set out by the Wolfenden Committee, which I referred to earlier. The basic function of criminal law is to preserve public order and decency, to protect citizens from what is offensive and injurious, and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of others. In Singapore, like in many other places, it is, generally, not the function of criminal law to intervene in the private lives of citizens. As we consider this question, it is also important to understand what will remain criminalised, even if section 377A is repealed. First, non-consensual sexual assault by males against other males will obviously be an offence, and it is a serious offence.”
“In Singapore, section 377A was substantively debated in Parliament 15 years ago in 2007, during the Second Reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. Over the course of two days, 16 Members of Parliament and Nominated Members of Parliament rose to speak on section 377A, to argue for, and against, its retention. It was a long debate. I have summarised the different positions taken by the Members of Parliament and Nominated Members of Parliament in Annex 4. [Please refer to Annex 4.] The Prime Minister spoke and stated the Government's position. He said that Singaporeans as a whole remained largely conservative. The majority wanted to keep Singapore a conservative society with heterosexual stable families. But at the same time, there was growing science-based evidence that sexual orientation was substantially inborn. Gay people must have a place in society and they are entitled to their private lives. But there were still very different views among Singaporeans on whether homosexuality was acceptable or morally right. Thus, LGBT advocacy should not set the tone for the rest of Singapore society. We will try and maintain a balance, said the Prime Minister, to uphold a stable society with traditional, heterosexual family values, but with space for homosexuals to live their lives and contribute to society. He added that we would continue to retain section 377A but not proactively enforce it. It was a very Singaporean way of dealing with the situation, which best fitted with the way our society was. The Prime Minister also reminded Members that section 377A was inherited from the British and that Asian societies which were similar to ours did not have such laws – not in Japan, not in China and not in Taiwan.”
“Some have decriminalised it through the parliamentary process. Some have had their section 377A equivalent struck down by the courts. But there are also some countries which continue to keep the criminal laws. Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to display some slides on the screen. Slides 1 and 2 of Annex 3 show the countries, territories and jurisdictions that have decriminalised homosexuality and those which have not done so, because not all the places in these two slides are countries. [Please refer to Annex 3.] Slide 3 shows the same for Asian states, places and jurisdictions. We can see that across the world there are different approaches, even though there is a trend towards decriminalisation. In Singapore, we look carefully at international trends, but we do not simply follow such trends. We chart our own path based on what we believe is in our own best interests. And we are very clear to foreign governments and companies that these are political, social and moral choices for Singaporeans to decide and that they should not interfere. For example, in 2021, the US embassy co-hosted a webinar on LGBT rights with a Singaporean LGBT organisation. MFA spoke to the embassy to remind them not to interfere in our domestic politics. More recently, in August this year, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement when she was in Singapore asking business groups to support the LGBT community in Singapore. MHA issued a statement reminding foreign businesses to be careful about advocating on socially divisive issues in Singapore. We would also say to US politicians who feel very strongly about these issues that perhaps they should first try and persuade the people in Texas and other such places before they issue statements in Singapore.”
“They state, and I quote: “Homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice. We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behaviour, regardless of state of origin, and we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values. No one should be granted special legal status based on their LGBTQ+ identification.” But other Republicans have different views on homosexuality. A survey of more than 22,000 people by the Public Religion Research Institute in March of this year found that 48% supported same-sex marriage and 50% opposed it. These were persons who identified themselves as Republicans. If you look at, say, Italy – I will not go through in detail. I have in set out what has been happening in Italy in Annex 2. [Please refer to Annex 2.] You will see the divisions. I have laid out examples of how, within the same religion, the same denomination, the same churches within the denomination and in wider society, within some Western countries, even those who are often described as "liberal", the issues remain deeply divisive. To be clear, it is not the exact same issue in all these communities. In some, the division is about homosexuality in itself. In some, it is about the roles of LGBT people, for example, in church ordination. In others, it is other related issues like same-sex unions that are divisive. Let me now say something about global trends. Around the world, in several countries, as well as in jurisdictions and territories which are not quite countries, several have decriminalised their version of section 377A, including Commonwealth and Southeast Asian countries.”
“In the Church of England, LGBT issues have also been the subject of intense debate for decades. I mentioned earlier that the Church of England had supported the partial decriminalisation of homosexual conduct in the UK in 1967. But actually, within the Church of England, there was no consensus. The Church was more or less equally split on the issue when it was put to a vote. Of its 735 members, 155 voted in favour, 138 voted against, and the rest either absented themselves or abstained. So, there continues to be strong differences in viewpoints on this issue, as Members may have seen from recent media reports. What does all of this show? First, that even within a single religious community, it is difficult to agree on the “right” answer, assuming there is one, on the issue of homosexuality. Second, that homosexuality is a topic that continues to raise strong viewpoints. Third, that if we do not handle this carefully, homosexuality can be a deeply divisive issue even among those who share a common belief. Some of the international media outlets that report on these issues often gloss over these differences. They gloss over the problems their societies face, and do not understand the need to deal with these issues sensitively, with understanding. They present views as if they are settled and that anyone who has a negative view of male homosexuality is a bigot and is wrong. If you look at the US, it is considered more accepting of LGBT rights than many other countries. But the country is internally split over this issue. For example, in the Republican states of Florida and Texas, there remain strong objections to LGBT rights. The Republican Party of Texas recently adopted anti-LGBT positions into their party platform.”
“The UK was bound by that decision and the UK parliament decriminalised private, consensual homosexual conduct between adults in Northern Ireland in 1982. However, at that time, Northern Ireland’s society was deeply religious, largely conservative and the majority of the population on Northern Ireland opposed the decriminalisation, including most of the Protestant Churches as well as the Roman Catholic Church. The Bill was opposed by all 12 of the Northern Ireland members of parliament in the UK parliament. But, nonetheless, it passed through both Houses by majority vote. Northern Ireland’s experience shows how a court decision can force a change even though a society is not ready for such a change. I will come back to this later. Today, homosexuality remains a deeply divisive issue around the world. This is true even within more religiously homogenous communities, such as the Church of England and the Global Anglican Church. If we look at the Anglican Communion, it comprises 42 member churches. It is the third largest Christian communion after the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. For decades, there has been a strong difference of views within the Anglican Communion on whether same-sex unions can be legitimised and blessed and whether persons living in same-sex relationships can be ordained. Some Anglican churches in the Global North, such as in the US and Canada, are increasingly supportive of homosexuality. They allow same-sex marriages and ordain persons in same-sex relationships. However, several Anglican Churches from the Global South do not agree with this approach. This has resulted in the creation of the Global Anglican Future Conference, or GAFCON, in 2008, led by the more conservative Anglican bishops and leaders.”
“He stated upfront that he believed that homosexual acts were wrong, he went on to say that the case for amending the law rested on reason and justice, and on considerations of the good of the community. He said, to amend the law was not to condone the "wrongness" of the act. It, however, put such acts in the realm of private moral responsibility. He believed that the law, as it stood, gave a sense of injustice and bitterness, which helped morality no more than would a law which made fornication a crime. He further agreed with his predecessor that having such a law created fear, secretiveness and despair in gay persons who did not dare to seek help, lest they expose themselves and their friends to criminal proceedings. I would add that not all religious groups were in favour of the change. Some, such as the Church of Scotland and the Church of Ireland and the Baptist Church, objected to the reform. In 2003, all of the UK’s laws that specifically criminalised male homosexual behaviour, including the offence of gross indecency, were fully repealed. Before I move on from the UK, I would like to highlight the context of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland was and is part of the UK. However, the partial decriminalisation of homosexual conduct in the UK in 1967 only applied to the mainland and did not apply to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland’s path to decriminalisation started instead from the courts. After 14 years, in 1981, the European Court of Human Rights found that criminalising private homosexual conduct between men was “an unjustified interference with [a person’s] right to respect for his private life” and was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
“Moral conviction or instinctive feeling, however strong, is not a valid basis for over-riding the individual's privacy and for bringing within the ambit of the criminal law private sexual behaviour of this kind." The committee accepted that homosexual behaviour between males could have a damaging effect on family life. Let me pause there. I think many Singaporeans believe this as well and we must acknowledge these feelings and beliefs. The committee, however, emphasised that this damage was no greater than many other activities which were sins and may be considered immoral but were not otherwise criminal offences. The debate continued through the late 1950s and early 1960s. Law students may recall the well-known debate between Lord Devlin and Professor Hart on the Wolfenden report. For Members' reference, I have summarised the points they made in Annex 7. [Please refer to Annex 7.] Eventually, Lord Devlin, who had argued for the criminalisation of shared morality, also said that private consensual homosexual sex between adults should be decriminalised. In 1967, the UK parliament voted to decriminalise private consensual homosexual sex between two adults. By that time, religious groups such as the Church of England and the Methodist Conference, and members of both houses had publicly expressed support for a change. The members of the House of Lords who spoke in support of decriminalisation included the Lord Chancellor. He was the Speaker of the House of Lords and the Head of the Judiciary, as well as the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, who was the leader of the Church of England and the head of the global Anglican Union as well as various other bishops. I would like to briefly cite the speech made by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.”
“What we see is that these provisions, when they were first introduced, there was no substantive deliberation on whether there was indeed a need to criminalise homosexual behaviour and it looks more like happenstance than a deliberate decision. Regardless, the criminal provisions were retained as part of the UK's criminal law until the 1960s. The UK government appointed a committee known as the Wolfenden Committee in August 1954 to review laws relating to homosexual offences. That committee published a report in 1957. The committee stated that it was not charged to enter into matters of private moral conduct except insofar as they directly affect the public good. The committee was only concerned with whether homosexual behaviour should be dealt with under the criminal law. The committee concluded that the function of criminal law was three-fold: one, to preserve public order and decency; two, to protect the citizen from what is offensive and injurious; and three, to provide sufficient safeguards against the exploitation and corruption of others. In their view, it was not the function of criminal law to intervene in the private lives of citizens or to seek to enforce any particular pattern of behaviour, further than it was necessary to carry out these three functions. The committee took the view that homosexual activities in private should not be criminalised. The committee stated that: "Unless a deliberate attempt be made by society through the agency of the law to equate the sphere of crime with that of sin, there must remain a realm of private morality and immorality which is not the law's business. To say this, is not to condone or encourage private immorality.”
“She took several steps to establish her legitimacy. And one of the steps she took was to reduce the role of the church by moving the laws out of canon laws and making them secular laws to show that she was following in her father's footsteps. So, the Buggery Act became secular criminal law again. When you go through this history into the origins of the offence of sodomy, we see that it was introduced as part of a power struggle between Henry and the Catholic church, and not because of any view that sodomy per se ought to be criminalised. I am setting out the historical context factually, not suggesting that sodomy ought or ought not to have been criminalised. The second Act that was used to prosecute homosexual conduct was the offence of solicitating or importuning in public places for immoral purposes. This was first introduced under the Vagrancy Act 1898. It was initially intended to target pimps, men who lived off the earnings of female prostitutes. In practice, however, the legislation was used almost exclusively to prosecute men who engaged in homosexual conduct in public, though male homosexuality was not discussed in parliament when the bill was first introduced. The third offence was the offence of indecent assault against males. This was first introduced in under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The offence criminalised homosexual acts committed against males without consent. It was introduced as a part of a wider omnibus bill consolidating all offences against the person and was included in the same provision as an offence of attempting to commit sodomy. Unfortunately, the provision and its overlap with existing homosexual offences and even male homosexuality were not discussed at all during the parliamentary debates.”
“Members may also access the Annexes through the SG Parl Mobile App. In addition to section 11 of the UKCL, the UK also had three other offences which were also used sometimes to prosecute homosexual conduct. The first was Sodomy. Sodomy was first criminalised under the Buggery Act 1533 during the reign of King Henry VIII. The reason this law was passed is linked to a specific, important, historical event in British history and not because there was any specific intention to make sodomy a crime. I have in Annex 1, set out the background and context to how and why the Buggery Act was passed into law. [Please refer to Annex 1.] Prior to 1533, sodomy was considered an offence punished by the church. It was only tried in the Ecclesiastical Courts. In other words, not a crime as defined by the state; it was an offence in a religious context to be dealt with by the church. Members would know that Henry VIII broke with the church in Rome, started the Church of England, with him as the head of the church. He wanted to reduce the power of the church and one of the ways he did that was to reduce the power of the Ecclesiastical Courts. He did that by converting many of the church's canon laws into secular laws. The Buggery Act was one such law that was brought over from the canon laws and made into secular criminal law. That way, the King's courts would deal with the matter and the churches' jurisdiction was removed. What happened thereafter is also useful to note. His daughter, Mary, was an ardent Catholic. When she became Queen in 1553, she abolished the Buggery Act and moved it back to the Ecclesiastical Courts. Queen Elizabeth, another of Henry's daughter, succeeded Queen Mary five years later in 1558. There were questions on her legitimacy and her claims to the throne.”
“This is the genesis, the background to the law passed in 1885 which has gone on to impact the lives of tens of thousands of people and has caused much controversy and intense debate in many countries. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask for the distribution of a folder which contains Annexes 1 to 7 that I am going to refer to?”
“Another school of thought is that Mr Labouchere was fiercely homophobic and so he introduced the amendment. Mr Labouchere himself gave an explanation in parliament for why he introduced section 11 and his explanation raises more questions than it answered. He said that his amendment was to protect any person from an assault of "the kind dealt with" under section 11, whether the person was above, or under, the age of 13 years. After that short explanation, he said that he did not think it was necessary to discuss the proposal at any length because the government was willing to accept it. If we take at face value what Mr Labouchere said in parliament in 1885, then the purpose of section 11 was to prevent an indecent assault by one male against another male. The provision here introduced, which was passed into law, was however much wider than that, including those where the sex acts were done between consenting male adults. Thus, the amendment that was introduced was quite different from the explanation that was given. Indeed, the explanation he gave is somewhat contrary. The amendment was dealt with in parliament for less than four minutes. There was no discussion about the fact that the provision criminalises consenting male homosexual behaviour even though the stated purpose was to criminalise sexual assaults. People have spent time trying to work out the motives of Mr Labouchere and the reasons that the UK parliament passed the amendment. Some have suggested that the members were fatigued by the late hour – it was 2.30 am – and that the members had been worn out by the long debate on the bill to protect women and girls which, as I said earlier, had taken four years and that the members had just wanted to get on with it, to let the amendment through.”
“Thus, to understand the genesis of section 377A, we would need to look at the original UK law passed 137 years ago, which is section 11 of the UK Criminal Law Amendment Act (UKCL). Section 377A is an almost a word-for-word copy of section 11 of the UKCL. Section 11 of the UKCL was passed in 1885. Its origin is quite obscure and we have not been able to find any background, which explains why this section was introduced and made into law. What we did find, was that it was introduced in the UK House of Commons at 2.30 am in the morning with very few members of parliament who were present, as a last-minute amendment to an entirely unrelated bill. The unrelated bill was meant to protect women and girls and for the suppression of brothels. At that point, that unrelated bill on protection of women and girls had already been through a four-year long process, it had endured a long debate in parliament and it had passed the House of Lords without the amendment. The unrelated amendment on male homosexuality was introduced by a member of parliament, Mr Henry Labouchere. His motives for introducing section 11 into the bill on protection of women and girls are unclear. One school of thought is that Mr Labouchere had intended it to be a "wrecking amendment", to derail and discredit the entire bill on protection of women and girls. He had that reputation. In fact, he had introduced another amendment to the same bill. Another member of parliament said that Mr Labouchere "couldn't have been serious in introducing that other amendment." Academics who have studied the matter have pointed to Mr Labouchere's habitual parliamentary obstructionist technique. He would make spoiling amendments to discredit bills that have been introduced.”
“Minister Masagos has explained the reasons for the constitutional amendments. I will now speak on the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code. We thought very carefully before moving on the repeal of this section. Over the past year, we have engaged extensively with various groups, some, several times. Those we spoke with include religious leaders, LGBT groups, community leaders, people who want heterosexual marriage as a social norm, youth groups, members of the public who had written to us and many others. For many who did not believe that section 377A should be repealed, their main concerns were about the consequences of the repeal of section 377A, what will happen after the section is repealed and not because they thought gay sex between men should in itself be criminalised. In considering whether we should repeal section 377A, I will cover three areas. First, the historical context of section 377A. Second, the political compromise that has been struck in Singapore. And third, the reasons for now moving on the repeal. First, the historical context. Why do we have to look at the history? We need to understand why and how section 377A became part of the law, whether it was a deliberate, considered decision or perhaps more of happenstance. That provides the context for the discussion. As Members will know, section 377A makes it an offence for a male person, whether in public or private, to commit any act of gross indecency with another male. The term "gross indecency" can include both non-penetrative and penetrative sex acts. The section was introduced in 1938 when Singapore was a British colony. Attorney General Howell moved the Bill in 1938. He said that section 377A was being introduced to bring our law in line with the UK criminal law.”
“For 2010, 2015, and 2020 to 2022 until 30 September 2022, there was an average of about 2,639 fines, which were composition sums offered by the Traffic Police, and fines imposed by the Court, issued per year for the offence of failing to wear seat belts. We do not track if the persons were seated at the front or the rear of the vehicle.”
“The Police define violent offences as the commission of: (i) rioting-related offences under sections 146 to 148 of the Penal Code; and (ii) serious hurt offences under section 323A and sections 324 to 326 of the Penal Code. Table 1 shows the statistics for 2009 to 2021. The number of violent offences has been on a general decline since 2009. The percentage of violent offences committed by juveniles has fallen, although it rose in 2021 as compared to recent years. The percentage of violent offences that were gang-related has hovered around 15% to 25%. The profile of persons involved in the commission of violent offences was not tracked prior to 2009.”
“That said, technology and community partnership can mitigate the manpower pressures only to some extent, and we will still need an appropriately-sized force to be able to continue keeping Singapore safe and secure.”
“The Home Affairs Uniformed Services (HUS) officers' retirement age was raised from 55 to 56 on 1 July 2021. It will be raised progressively to 58 by 2030. This phased approach is to manage the impact on future hiring, the availability of posts and organisational renewal. Because of the nature of the work and the deep training required, our uniformed services have a pure-build workforce model, and most officers remain in service until retirement. A steady inflow and outflow of manpower is needed each year to meet operational demands and to build a sustainable pipeline of leaders and specialists. Raising the retirement age progressively allows the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to manage smoothly the changes to the manpower flow, to avoid bottlenecks at various levels of the organisation. Where necessary for operational needs, MHA will offer re-employment to officers who meet eligibility criteria, which includes physical fitness. Recognising that manpower is a constraint, MHA had started to transform our concept of operations since 2015. We have invested heavily in technology to enhance our operational effectiveness and productivity. For example, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) has been using video analytics to pick up abnormal behaviour in prison cells. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) has increased the usage of automated clearance facilities by travellers. The Smart Fire Station in Punggol uses sensors and automation to help with manpower management, operational response and decision making. Artificial intelligence (AI) is applied to help Police officers analyse the high volumes of footage from the Singapore Police Force (SPF)'s camera network. In addition, MHA has rallied community and industry stakeholders to help us deliver our mission.”
“The average turnover rate of white-collar crime Investigation Officers (IOs) in the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) over the past five years was 6%. Of these, 94% resigned from service, while 6% were retiring officers, half of whom were re-employed with the CAD. The Police invests heavily in the training and development of these IOs. They are sent for specialised training conducted by the Home Team School of Criminal Investigation (HTSCI) to deepen capabilities to address complex cases. They also have the opportunity to go on external postings to gain exposure and may be sponsored for professional accreditation. The skills and experience of the IOs are highly sought after in the financial sector. To attract and retain the IOs, the compensation package is regularly reviewed to remain market competitive. In the recently completed review, officers in the Home Affairs Uniformed Services (HUS) and the Commercial Affairs Scheme will receive a salary adjustment of between 3% and 10% with effect from 1 January 2023. At the same time, the Police constantly looks at ways to enable the IOs to better manage their heavy caseload, like the introduction of the Digital Forensic Kiosk, which allows officers to efficiently retrieve and analyse information in the mobile digital devices of persons under investigation.”
“Likewise, the law enforcement agencies will fairly and objectively investigate the case, including exculpating the arrested persons if the investigations do not bear out the grounds of arrest.”
“The Home Team does not track data relating to the time between a person's arrest and when he/she is given access to counsel. The Constitution ensures that accused persons have right of access to counsel. The Courts have upheld that this access to counsel must be granted after a "reasonable time". What constitutes "reasonable" depends on the individual facts of each case, balancing the accused's right to legal representation, and the public interest in ensuring thorough and objective investigations. We have to give our law enforcement agencies reasonable time to obtain evidence and get to the truth. At the same time, we have put in place measures to safeguard the interests of accused persons. We have implemented video recording of interviews (VRI) for certain categories of crime, to strengthen the robustness of investigations and statement taking. VRI provides an objective account of the interview and allows the Courts to factor in the interviewee's demeanour when determining the weight to be accorded to the interviewee's statement. We have also set up the Public Defender's Office, to render criminal legal aid to eligible persons charged with non-capital criminal offences but are unable to afford legal representation. This complements the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS), run by the Law Society, and the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences (LASCO) run by the Supreme Court. Ultimately, our criminal justice system is designed to enable us to get to the truth, in the interests of society. Arrested persons should tell the truth in their statements, regardless of whether they have had access to counsel, and we expect that their counsel will advise them to tell the truth.”
“Law enforcement agencies (LEA) may impound the passport of individuals to facilitate investigations if there are reasonable grounds to believe the individual has committed an offence. This is pursuant to section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code. An individual's passport may also be impounded as a condition of bail or personal bond, pursuant to section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code. LEAs also have the powers to impound passports for the purposes of recovery of duties or taxes owed pursuant to provisions under relevant Acts, such as the Stamp Duties Act, Income Tax Act and the Goods and Services Tax Act. The conditions above apply regardless of whether an individual was previously incarcerated. LEAs will consider applications for the release of an impounded passport on a case-by-case basis.”
“The Fire Code regulates the fire rating of glass when it is used for building features that compartmentalise spaces to prevent fire spread, for example, glass doors and interior glass partitions. On the other hand, windows are generally not building features that compartmentalise spaces, nor have they been a safety risk during fires. Fire incident sites are usually cordoned off, so that any glass debris would not hurt the public and there have not been related injuries based on Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF)'s records. Hence, the Fire Code does not mandate the use of fire-rated glass for windows of high-rise buildings, including Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats.”
“Additionally, the Police have been pushing out publicity on the ScamShield application at various platforms, such as MRT stations and bus stops. The Singapore SMS Sender ID Registry (SSIR) was introduced in March 2022 to further strengthen our defences against scam SMSes. The SSIR works with SMS aggregators to block messages attempting to spoof the Sender IDs of organisations which have registered with the SSIR. From 31 January 2023, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) will transition from a voluntary to mandatory SSIR regime. All organisations which wish to use Sender IDs will be required to register their IDs with the SSIR. This transition will take place over six months, after which, all unregistered SMS Sender IDs will be blocked. Businesses are encouraged to register their Sender IDs with the SSIR as soon as possible. To ensure that registration with the SSIR remains affordable for smaller organisations, IMDA has adjusted registration fees, from $1,000 for one bundle of up to 10 Sender IDs, to $200 for each Sender ID. This will reduce costs for smaller businesses, which typically use only one or two Sender IDs. More details are available at https://sgnic.sg/smsregistry/overview.”
“The ScamShield mobile application was launched as part of the Government's multi-pronged approach to identify and block scam calls and SMSes. The iOS and Android versions were launched in November 2020 and September 2022 respectively. As of October 2022, about 6.5 million SMSes had been flagged to users as potential scams and about 12,900 unique scam-tainted phone numbers have been blacklisted and blocked by ScamShield. Telecommunication companies have started implementing additional anti-scam filters for their networks. These filters scan for patterns and malicious URL hyperlinks to identify and block scam SMSes. Nonetheless, ScamShield remains useful. It is an additional layer of defence. ScamShield also provides additional protection by blocking calls from blacklisted numbers. In addition, ScamShield has a reporting function to allow users to alert the authorities about the scam messages and calls they receive. The National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) and Open Government Products are studying ways to enhance ScamShield. One area they are studying is to make it easier for users to report potential scams. The Police work closely with stakeholders to encourage the download of ScamShield. For example, the Police regularly share crime information, including scam prevention advice, with Residents' Committees and grassroots volunteers, so that in turn, they can engage their residents about scams via their own outreach platforms. Senior citizens are encouraged to download ScamShield during these sessions. Volunteer Crime Prevention Ambassadors from the NCPC also share about ScamShield with residents, including senior citizens, during their engagements.”
“It is compulsory for Singapore Citizens (SCs) and Permanent Residents (PRs) born in or after 1962 to re-register for a new National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) within one year upon turning ages 30 and 55. These compulsory re-registrants will receive a notification letter from the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to remind them to re-register within a year. Re-registrants are eligible for a subsidised fee of $10 for SCs and $50 for PRs for the issuance of their new NRIC. NRIC holders who re-register beyond the one-year period will be asked for the reason for their late re-registration. However, the subsidised fee will still be extended to them. From January 2020 to December 2021, approximately 9% of compulsory re-registrants missed the one-year deadline to re-register for their new NRIC. For SCs and PRs born before 1 January 1962, NRIC re-registration is optional. They will receive the notification letter from ICA to notify them that they have the option to re-register within one year at the subsidised fee of $10 for SCs and $50 for PRs. If they miss the one-year window, a higher re-registration fee of $60 will apply. ICA will assess appeals for the subsidised fee on a case-by-case basis. From January 2020 to December 2021, approximately 72% of optional re-registrants did not re-register for their new NRIC.”
“On 9 March 2022, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) announced that the Government would mandate lorries with Maximum Laden Weight (MLW) between 3,500 kilogrammes and 12,000 kilogrammes to be fitted with speed management devices or speed limiters. Since then, the Traffic Police has been working with industry stakeholders to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of the different types of speed limiter. In gist, while we want to ensure that speed limiters are accurate and not easy to tamper with, we are also mindful of the cost impact on vehicle owners, many of whom are small business owners. To that end, the Traffic Police are studying various models that use different technologies, as well as overseas experiences. In addition, the Traffic Police are developing the implementation plan. This includes ensuring that the market will have sufficient capacity to meet the estimated demand of speed limiters, and sufficient number of authorised agents to install and inspect the devices. This is to ensure that vehicle owners can have the speed limiters installed quickly and minimise downtimes for their vehicles. We aim to complete the evaluation of speed limiters and finalise the implementation plan by early next year.”
“I will clarify one point first. Land is a scarce asset which is protected as Past Reserves. The sale proceeds from land are added to Past Reserves on this principle: when Land is sold, no new wealth is created – it is a conversion of physical assets to financial assets. Thus, as the Member may be aware, proceeds from land sales accrue fully to Past Reserves and are not available as revenue for spending in the Budget. The land sold to the private sector for development is done mainly via open tender through the Government Land Sales Programme (GLS). From FY2001 to FY2021, SLA received an average of $5.2 billion annually from GLS sites for public housing, where such housing is developed by the private sector1, private housing2 and non-housing use. The historical data on tender prices for GLS sites and their respective uses can be found on the HDB, Urban Development Authority and Jurong Town Corporation websites. These proceeds, the average of $5.2 billion per year, were paid into the Reserves, as physical assets (land) were converted into financial assets. Sale of state land to HDB for public housing development does not fall under GLS. The information on proceeds to SLA paid by HDB for the purchase of state land can be found in HDB’s annual financial statements report, which is published on HDB’s website.”
“Preventing and deterring abuse and harassment of security officers require the whole of society. The nature of their work, which could involve restricting access to premises, crowd control and conflict mediation, invariably exposes them to greater risk of confrontation with people. MHA and the Police recognise the importance of training for security officers, so that they can better protect themselves. Therefore, we have been working with the tripartite partners to enhance their competency in public engagement and conflict management, such as customer orientation, problem solving and de-escalation skills. We will make these subjects more pertinent in the training that all security officers undergo before deployment and assess how they can also be incorporated into refreshers for in-service officers. MHA and our tripartite partners will continue to ensure our security officers’ welfare and intervene where necessary.”
“MHA takes a very serious view of abuse and harassment of security officers. In October 2021, MHA amended the Private Security Industry Act to enhance protections for them. New offences addressing the common types of abuse and harassment were introduced, with penalties pegged higher than if they were committed against general members of the public. The amendments have been in force since May 2022. Given that it has only been six months since, it is too early to conclude on their impact. Nevertheless, anecdotally, the new legal provisions have enhanced awareness among security officers of the protections afforded to them and have encouraged them and their employers to come forward to report incidents of abuse or harassment.”
“Tables 1 and 2 show the number of road traffic accidents reported from 2017 to 2021 in Sengkang GRC, with the breakdown as requested by the Member.”
“As of September 2022, there are three driving schools with a total of 845 school instructors and an additional 345 private driving instructors. From January to September 2022, the combined enrolment rate was 7,100 learner motorists per month for Class 3 and Class 3A licences. This is higher than pre-COVID-19 levels, where the enrolment rate was around 6,600 learner motorists per month. There is likely some pent-up demand from the pandemic period. Given the relatively higher enrolment rates now, learner motorists may have to wait longer before they can begin their driving lessons or may find it more difficult to book their desired lesson slots. The driving schools have been monitoring the situation and are actively hiring more driving instructors to meet the demand.”
“In 2019, the Police received 125 reports related to cryptocurrency scams. This increased to 397 in 2020 and 631 in 2021. The vast majority of cryptocurrency scams are perpetrated by scammers based outside Singapore. As such, there is a limit to how much law enforcement agencies in Singapore can do. Our ability to solve these cases will depend on the level of cooperation from overseas law enforcement agencies, as well as their ability to track down these scammers. Where the money has been transferred overseas, recovery is even more difficult. Nonetheless, we have stepped up our investigation efforts. The Police established a cryptocurrency task force in 2018 to monitor the cryptocurrency landscape, develop and improve operational procedures in investigations and seizure of cryptocurrencies and establish working relationships with overseas law enforcement agencies, industry professionals and academic experts. The task force works closely with MAS, which regulates entities that deal in or facilitate the exchange of cryptocurrencies. The best defence, however, is a discerning public. To that end, we have stepped up public education efforts to educate the public on cryptocurrency-related scams. Since 2017, MAS has consistently warned that cryptocurrencies are not suitable investments for the general public, given their highly volatile prices and speculative nature. MAS and MoneySENSE will continue to issue such warnings through advisories and MoneySENSE’s outreach channels. Members of the public should practise healthy scepticism to ask, check and confirm, before making any cryptocurrency transactions.”
“The Yellow Ribbon Community Project (YRCP) is a voluntary programme offered to all newly-admitted inmates. It serves as a touchpoint for inmates' families to access assistance if required. The most common reason cited for inmates who chose not to participate in YRCP was that they assessed that their family members did not require assistance or the families were already receiving some form of community assistance. Other reasons include inmates not wanting their family members and the surrounding community to know about their incarceration and inmates who said they did not have any family. To encourage inmates to participate, officers in Singapore Prison Service (SPS) explain the importance and benefits of YRCP to all newly-admitted inmates. SPS also sends broadcasts on the benefits of YRCP via the inmates' tablets to further enhance awareness. Inmates who did not opt in at the point of admission can choose to participate in YRCP at any point during their incarceration. There are also other touchpoints put in place by SPS to provide assistance to the families of inmates. SPS triages newly-admitted inmates with young children and refers families who require assistance to Family Service Centres (FSCs) for follow-up. Inmates can also request assistance for their families through referrals put up by the SPS officers to the Prisons' Family Resource Centres (FRCs). FRCs provide outreach services and are located at the Changi Prison Link Centre, where families can conveniently walk in to seek assistance when they visit their loved ones. SPS also works with community partners like The Salvation Army and New Life Stories to deliver family programmes for the inmates' families.”
“Many activities can cause pedestrians to be distracted while crossing roads, such as listening to music, speaking to another person or interacting with a mobile device. It may not be practical to try to prohibit pedestrians from engaging in such activities. A better approach is to foster good road safety habits and personal responsibility. The Traffic Police (TP) conducts regular engagement and outreach to educate road users on the dangers of distracted crossing. For example, as part of this year's Road Safety Month campaign in June 2022, TP produced infographics and video advisories to educate the public on pedestrian safety and the dangers of distracted crossing and jaywalking.”
“From January 2020 till September 2022, there were 2,441 fire incidents in HDB flats. In three of them, there was vertical fire spread which affected the units up to two floors directly above the initial affected unit. The prevailing Fire Code 2018 requires new residential buildings exceeding 24 metres in height to be provided with an apron wall or horizontal ledge on the building façade to minimise risk of vertical fire spread. Till date, there have been no cases of lateral fire spread across HDB units, based on SCDF's records. This is because residential units are designed as fire compartments to prevent the spread of fire beyond the unit. As for smoke inhalation injuries, this occurred in less than 5% of the HDB fire incidents since January 2020. This includes residents from both the initial affected unit and neighbouring units.”
“As part of Delta League, anti-gang experts from the Police share relevant information with the youths to divert them away from violent behaviour and activities, by informing them of the dangers and consequences of joining gangs and violence. Aside from Delta League, the Police conduct several other programmes to steer youths away from gang activities, such as the Joint Outreach Programmes and Streetwise Programme. The Joint Outreach Programmes, conducted in collaboration with MOE and MSF, consist of anti-gang talks and engagement of at-risk students in schools and boys’ homes. The Streetwise Programme provides youths found to be involved in gang activities with access to social workers for assistance and counselling. The Police will continue to work with the schools and relevant stakeholders to reach out to youths.”
“The Police define offences causing serious hurt as the commission of offences under sections 323A and 324 to 326 of the Penal Code. These cover offences which result in grievous hurt, or voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous means or weapons. The number of offenders aged 21 and below, which I will refer to as youth offenders, who were arrested for these offences was: 85 in 2021 and 27 in the first half of 2022. Since 2011, the number has fluctuated, with a low of 51 in 2017 and a high of 87 in 2016. There is no clear trend. The number of youth offenders as a percentage of all offenders for offences causing serious hurt remains low. Overall, the situation is under control. Why youths commit offences, whether violent offences or otherwise, is a complex and multifaceted issue. Correspondingly, tackling this requires a multi-stakeholder approach. All stakeholders, including educational institutions, law enforcement agencies, social services and parents, have a role to play in reducing youth crime. It requires a holistic approach, including preventive programmes upstream, rehabilitative programmes downstream, as well as effective enforcement. The Police work with the schools, Institutes of Higher Learning and the National Crime Prevention Council to educate our youths on the consequences of crime. These include school talks, crime prevention exhibitions and crime awareness programmes. One such programme is the Delta League, which engages youths aged 13 to 17, through sports and meaningful activities, such as workshops and design competitions, to keep them occupied during the school holidays to steer them away from crime.”
“Further, we have, in recent years, widened the differentiation of benefits accorded to PRs and Singaporeans, such that Singaporeans receive more benefits in areas, such as parenthood, housing, healthcare and education. This reflects the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. That said, taking up citizenship is a serious commitment that is, ultimately, a personal decision.”
“About 33,400 individuals were granted Permanent Residency (PR) in 2021. This number is similar to pre-COVID-19 levels. For instance, we granted about 32,900 new PRs in 2019. The grant figure in 2021 included several thousand applicants who were approved in-principle but had not completed all the required processes to be granted PR by end-2020. Such processes have to be done in-person and some applicants could not do so due to travel restrictions amid the COVID-19 situation. This also explained the below-trend number of 27,470 PRs granted in 2020. The exact number of new PRs granted each year depends on several factors, including the number and quality of applications we receive. We will continue to select PRs based on their ability to integrate and contribute to Singapore and their commitment to sinking roots here. We have kept and will continue to keep the pace of immigration measured and stable, so that Singapore remains a cohesive society and a good home for all Singaporeans. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) assesses applications for PR independently from work passes. Changes to the Employment Pass Framework will not change how ICA assesses PR applications, which includes evaluating the applicants’ family ties, contributions to Singapore and length of residency. No work pass, including the new Overseas Networks and Expertise (ONE) Pass, gives its holder any guarantee of or fast-track to PR. Singapore Citizenship (SC) applications usually take 12 months to process. The best way to encourage qualified PRs to convert to SC is to continue to ensure that Singaporeans are well-looked after in a Singapore that continues to do well.”
“Statistics on the number of Protection Orders (PO) or Expedited Protection Orders (EPO) granted in the past five years are as follows: In respect of alleged breaches of PO or EPO, there were two applications filed seeking committal orders as of 30 June 2022. Information on the number of cases of alleged breaches of PO or EPO which have been referred to the Public Prosecutor for further investigation and action is not readily available.”
“Statistics on the breakdown of harassment cases filed with the Protection from Harassment Court from 1 June 2021 to 30 June 2022, is as follows:”
“From the operationalisation of the Protection from Harassment Court (PHC) on 1 June 2021 to 30 June 2022, there have been 650 applications for civil remedies (that is, protection orders, orders relating to false statements and damages) filed with the PHC. Of these 650 applications, the PHC has granted 173 protection orders and awarded damages in nine cases, as at 30 June 2022. Complaints for alleged Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) offences are filed by way of a Magistrate's Complaint in the Magistrate's Court, not the PHC. There have been 626 Magistrate's Complaints filed for alleged POHA offences from 1 June 2021 to 30 June 2022. The Magistrate does not refer Magistrate's Complaints to the Public Prosecutor, but may direct the Police to conduct investigations into the complaint, who may thereafter refer the matter to the Public Prosecutor. Information on the number of Magistrate's Complaints filed for alleged POHA offences which were subsequently referred to the Public Prosecutor for further action is not readily available.”
“The Police do not track the number of complaints about noise-related nuisance or disturbances. The majority of these cases do not have criminal offences disclosed.”
“In 2021, there were 11 fires in general waste disposal facilities, which include waste recycling facilities. Of these 11 fires, six involved waste materials. From 1 January to 17 September 2022, there have been 12 fires in general waste disposal facilities, nine of which involved waste materials. The Fire Code requires buildings containing waste recycling facilities to install appropriate fire protection systems. The type of system required depends on the size of the waste recycling facility. Building plans incorporating the appropriate fire protection systems need to be submitted and approved by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF). SCDF collaborates with the Waste Management and Recycling Association of Singapore to organise dialogues and seminars to raise awareness about fire safety in the waste management industry. These sessions help to build rapport between SCDF and members of the industry, and serve as a platform to share good practices and lessons learned from incidents and near misses. NEA is also working with SCDF on a joint circular and a set of best practices covering measures to minimise fire risks in waste recycling facilities. It is targeted to be sent out to the industry by end-2022.”
“If a person has made an electronic fund transfer in error, he should inform the unintended recipient or his bank of the mistake and request for the funds to be returned. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has issued guidelines on this issue. Under these guidelines, the sender’s bank should help to engage the recipient’s bank to inform the unintended recipient, so that a refund can be initiated. This framework helps parties resolve erroneous payments without the need to commence legal proceedings. If the recipient refuses to return funds that have been transferred in error, the sender should make a police report. It is an offence under the Penal Code for the recipient to retain or use the funds when he has been informed that it was transferred in error. It is also possible for the sender to bring a civil claim against the unintended recipient. Such a claim must, depending on its value, be filed with the Magistrates’ Court, District Courts, or the General Division of the High Court. I thank the Member for his suggestion, which we will study in future reviews of the Small Claims Tribunals Act.”
“At the same time, the Government has been doing a review of our PW land allocation and pricing framework, to see how the price rises can be mitigated. This was publicly disclosed and reported in the media in July this year in an article titled "Religious groups hope to pay less for leasehold land after policy review." Pending the conclusion of the review, the Government has also advised PWs, where the lease has come up for renewal, to consider taking up a short-term tenancy or Temporary Occupation Licence, so that once the review is completed, the PWs will get the benefit of the review. This has also been reported in the media. Thus far, 20 PWs have done this, while six PWs have decided, nevertheless, to proceed with a 30-year lease renewal at current market prices. Significant progress on the review has been made. Details will be released when the process is completed.”
“State land parcels, including those that are allocated for Place of Worship (PW) use, are required to be sold at fair market value (FMV). In general, they are sold through a competitive tender process where the highest acceptable bid becomes the land price for the specific site. A different approach is taken for mosque land. Land for mosques is directly alienated to Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) which centrally coordinates mosque development, at market price as determined by the Chief Valuer (CV). This would, generally, result in mosque land being less expensive, because there is no bidding. The proceeds from the disposal of state land, including land sold for PWs, go to the Past Reserves. This is because land is part of the Past Reserves, and land sales simply convert physical assets to financial assets. The sale proceeds of land cannot, therefore, be used as revenue for spending in the Budget. For lease renewals of PWs, the premium is also at current market price, as determined by the CV generally. In determining the current market price, the CV takes into consideration relevant transactions of PW land and makes necessary adjustments for attributes of the site, such as location and land area. In recent years, the PW land prices have risen because of competitive bidding by religious organisations. The Government cannot unilaterally adjust the price of land that is sold for PW use, as it is covered by the Reserves Protection Framework to dispose of land at FMV. Any change will require a change to the Reserves Protection Framework and the approval of the President. The Government has been in discussions with various religious organisations to consider how best to assist them in mitigating the price rises, which come from such bidding.”