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 30 of 92.
“The Police have completed their investigations against the driver for a possible offence of Rash Act Causing Hurt under section 337(a) of the Penal Code 1871. They have referred the matter to the Public Prosecutor for a decision on the appropriate course of action.”
“The Member's question on the number of knife-related crimes has been addressed in my reply to Question Nos 28 and 29 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 4 April 2022. [Please refer to "Measures to Help Police Protect Public and Guide Individuals at Risk of Being Drawn into Knife-related Crimes ", Official Report, 4 April 2022, Vol 95, Issue 60, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
“This is an issue that should not be viewed solely on the basis of discrete indicators. The Government is speaking with diverse groups of Singaporeans to better understand their viewpoints. We will consider them carefully and assess the best way forward. Ms Hazel Poa has informed Parliament that she and her Party do not have a position on whether section 377A should be retained or abolished.”
“In 2020 and 2021, Police speed cameras detected about 67,600 and 63,600 speeding violations respectively. They were lower than the 96,400 speeding violations detected in 2019, due to the lower traffic volume during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Traffic Police deploy speed cameras at speeding-prone and accident-prone locations, where the terrain is suitable. They complement such deployment with regular enforcement actions. The Traffic Police and the Land Transport Authority have also been working together to assess how the road infrastructure can be modified. This includes implementing speed calming measures, such as speed regulating strips. The Member asked if we would consider expanding the criteria for deployment of speed cameras. At this moment, we have no plans to do so. We assess our current deployment and criteria to be adequate.”
“The Government has not detected a coordinated hostile information campaign (HIC) targeted specifically at Singapore so far. However, we have detected some social media accounts involved in local online discussions about the Ukraine conflict, with characteristics that suggested that they may be inauthentic. Separately, we have also noticed our population being influenced by news and commentaries from foreign sources. As MHA has said in media statements, we had surfaced the suspicious accounts to TikTok for its review. TikTok had conducted internal investigations and shared that the accounts did not appear to be of foreign origin. Actions and misinformation could come in the form of hearsay, rumours, half-truths or misleading statements that may not be easily identifiable as such. They could appear to come from sources that seem local and/or authentic at first glance and, so, are all the more insidious as they behave or are passed off as part of legitimate domestic discourse.”
“The Traffic Police, or TP, does not track the number of tailgating incidents, as tailgating is not an offence in and of itself. That said, a motorist who fails to keep a safe distance from the vehicle ahead and, as a result, is involved in an accident, may be charged with the offence of Driving Without Due Care or Reasonable Consideration. The first offence carries a fine not exceeding $1,500, an imprisonment term not exceeding six months, or both. Subsequent offences carry higher penalties. The motorist could also be charged with more serious offences, such as Reckless or Dangerous Driving, depending on the facts of the case. All motorists are expected to drive in a safe and responsible manner. The Basic Theory of Driving handbook instructs all motorists to maintain a safe following distance. TP conducts regular engagements with the general public and targeted groups, as well as campaigns, such as the Use Your RoadSense campaign, to educate motorists on safe driving habits. TP has also produced road safety advisory videos. These public education efforts are complemented by enforcement actions against motorists who engage in irresponsible or dangerous behaviour that threatens the safety of other road users.”
“The Police have only requested for TraceTogether data once, for a murder that occurred in May 2020. This request was discussed in Parliament in February 2021, during the Second Reading of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment) Bill. TraceTogether data has not been used for any criminal investigations since, neither for offences under the Seventh Schedule nor for offences outside the Seventh Schedule.”
“I thank the Member for the four questions. On the last one, the short answer is yes, it will cover appeals and both sides can appeal. On the first question on LASCO, I actually did not touch on LASCO at all. I talked about CLAS. On LASCO, I think one has got to see what PDO covers fully, then we have got to see whether LASCO is necessary because, in the end, regardless of which pocket, it all comes from the Government's pocket and, ultimately, from the taxpayer. So, this is something that we need to discuss with the Supreme Court, what makes sense from a public taxpayer's perspective and the perspective of the person to be defended, and the institutions involved. There may be merit in keeping LASCO. So, these are issues that need to be discussed. On demarcation of work between PDO and CLAS, as I had indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, this is something that needs to be discussed. Our intention is that regulatory offences should not be covered. Road traffic offences can fall in different categories. Some may be regulatory, some will be much more than regulatory. If they are serious and they have serious consequences and they deal with substantive issues of moral fault, that is something that could possibly be covered. Drink driving, I am not quite sure where it fits in because it seemed to come from the third question. I would prefer to hold my comments on drink driving until we have settled on the list of legislation.”
“I think on the two questions, I will give an answer. But, first, on the comment on declining PDO, I will stand corrected, I am not sure that we expressly declined to have a PDO. But I think, in substance, the Member is correct in that the Government has previously taken the position that criminal legal aid ought not to be funded. But as I described earlier in my Ministerial Statement, by 2013, we explained that we will do so, and we did so through CLAS. So, this is a further and very significant step forward. That is about nine years now where we have been funding criminal legal aid. As to the specific questions as to which Commission, I think the right position ought to be that the officers within PDO, qua-PDO, should not be subject to either Commission. Neither the Judicial Service Commission nor the Legal Service Commission. They will be MinLaw officers, in a department under MinLaw and separate from both Commissions. I do not, in principle, completely rule out secondments from either Commission. Those are matters of detail which need to be looked at. But when they exercise their duties qua-PDO officers, they will be assessed primarily by MinLaw. Second, private prosecutions. Again, I want to be careful about setting things in stone today. But the thinking is that private prosecution should, in principle, not be covered by this.”
“There are some categories that CLAS may perhaps cover, too, but these are things that will need to be discussed in greater detail with the Law Society.”
“The three headings cover the nine pieces of legislation. As to the questions on how much funding the office is likely to require, the number of staff to begin operations, these are matters of detail. We have some idea, but I would prefer to deal with it, if necessary, at the Bill stage because there are some discussions going on with the Minister for Finance. So, maybe the Member can ask him as well. And I do not think the Minister for Finance will appreciate me going into those details at this point. Of course, I can tell the Member and then, bind the Minister! But it does not work that way. On a more serious note, this primarily has to be funded out of MinLaw's budget. We are discussing, both on the staffing and the monetary issues. Obviously, I am not making a Ministerial Statement here without Cabinet clearance on the principles. And we intend to start, as I said, in a very modest way by the end of this year. That means trying to get the Bill drafted, put it in place, try to get it put through, have the people employed – all within the next eight months or so. So, it is quite a rush. So, I would prefer to defer the questions on numbers. But what the House can be certain about is that, at a steady state, with the kind of framework we are thinking of, a fairly robust means test, merits test, we will cover those who need assistance. As to the relationship between PDO and CLAS, again, that is at the margins. I have said what we will cover and we will have to discuss with CLAS. There will be perhaps cases which may not qualify for our means test, but CLAS may feel would be good to cover. Of course, PDO will only assist Singapore Citizens.”
“Could I ask for the third question again, please?”
“Sir, in conclusion, the measures I have mentioned stem from the same objective. We want to enhance access to justice for vulnerable individuals in Singapore. We will pass a Bill to codify these proposals and establish the Public Defender’s Office. We aim to have the office start operations, at least in some modest way, by the end of this year, assuming the Bill gets passed in Parliament.”
“They were concerned that the expansion of Legal Aid would affect the livelihood of lawyers who were providing paid legal services. We have analysed our past data. Of the newly eligible persons who will benefit from expanded coverage, 60% would likely be litigants-in-persons, meaning that the impact on paid work for lawyers should not be substantial. We have to do the right thing here. Our assessment is that in the main, lawyers’ income should not substantially be affected, and their income will not in the main, depend on people at the 35th percentile and below. What does this expansion mean in terms of numbers? In FY2020, CLAS covered around 712 cases. We estimate that with these changes, the total caseload for criminal legal aid could increase by another 50%, or may be a little bit more, if the take-up rate for legal aid increases, and of course, this number could increase. Earlier, I spoke about how other jurisdictions have addressed rising costs. I also talked about how the system could be abused. We will have to be careful about the cases the Government funds using taxpayers’ money. In other jurisdictions, expansions in coverage contributed to higher costs. We will have to be very careful to try and not strain the public purse. We intend to put in place measures to try and ensure that aid is given only in deserving cases and try and ensure that the costs of criminal legal aid remain sustainable. Let me move on to the staffing of PDO. It will be staffed by lawyers who handle the work. This can include fresh graduates and younger lawyers, mid-career hires who want to do criminal legal aid work and Legal Service officers. These officers will provide the depth of experience and institutional knowledge to build the PDO. They can help ensure quality control.”
“The details of the funding will be assessed and discussed in light of the PDO being set up. Other details will also have to be worked out, including the cases which PDO will handle and cases which CLAS will handle. Let me now move on to what types of criminal cases that PDO will cover. We have decided to enhance coverage, both in terms of income and the types of offences covered. Currently, CLAS covers up to the 25th percentile of resident households. Our assessment is that we should increase this to the 35th percentile. So, we plan to increase income coverage from the 25th to the 35th percentile of resident households. This raises the per capita household income cut-off from $950 to $1,500. This means more needy Singaporeans who require the services of a criminal defence lawyer will be covered. Second, we will expand the type of offences covered. It is easier to illustrate that by saying what types of offences will not be covered. We will not be covering regulatory offences such as traffic summonses and departmental charges. We will also not be covering offences under nine pieces of legislation whose primary purpose is to deter specific behaviours. These are gambling and betting, organised and syndicated crime, and terrorism. Offences under these Acts bring about significant negative externalities to society, and public funding, I think, will be difficult to justify being used towards defending such cases. PDO will also have the discretion to exclude cases if the CPD thinks that the representation may not make a material difference to the case’s outcome. They will have to apply a strong merits test approach. This includes cases involving offences with established sentencing frameworks. I mentioned earlier that we had consulted the Law Society Council and Criminal Bar.”
“Legal aid cannot depend on public outrage because once we categorise and the means and merits tests are satisfied – merits, means – and I will come to it – we are going to exclude certain types of cases. But as long as it falls within the categories of cases which would be covered by legal aid, then public outrage, on a case-by-case basis, cannot be the basis on which legal aid is given or not given. We will need to think through and explain our position carefully to the public. We have considered the lessons from others, as well as the feedback from the Law Society and Criminal Bar. I will now share the next steps for this major change in approach for delivering criminal legal aid in Singapore. We will set up a Public Defender's Office, or PDO, to provide criminal legal aid. It will be fully funded by the Government. The Government will continue to work with CLAS. They will deal with some criminal cases. This will also help to preserve the probono spirit of the legal fraternity, which has been a key pillar of legal aid. The PDO will be established as a department under MinLaw. This is similar to the Legal Aid Bureau now and the Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office. It will be headed by a Chief Public Defender, call him "CPD". We will adopt a hybrid model of criminal legal aid. This is similar to some of the common law jurisdictions that I spoke about earlier. It means that the PDO will have full-time lawyers as employees of the PDO and they will take on cases as public defenders. The PDO will scale up over a period of time. The Public Defenders will take on all of PDO's cases in the early years. At a later date, the PDO will begin outsourcing some cases to a panel of qualified lawyers. The Government will continue to provide some co-funding to CLAS.”
“The annex contains examples of abuses of criminal legal aid in other jurisdictions. Members may also access this material through the SG Parl MP mobile app. There are two categories of abuses which we need to be aware of. First, some lawyers, not the majority, in other countries overbill, flout the rules, for their own benefit. Quite egregious. One example is in Ontario, Canada. There was a lawyer who billed around S$160,000 between 2013 and 2016. He said this was for travel expenses, meant for cases where the lawyer had to travel more than 200 kilometres to the court. But a check showed that the lawyer's office was actually quite close to the courts. It is just one example. There are many such examples. We need to try and first, be aware; and second, avoid this sort of abuse. Overbilling, in a variety of ways, is not uncommon in these places. Second, and not infrequently, unmeritorious applicants who take advantage of legal aid include individuals who are asset-rich or wealthy but find ways to meet the eligibility criteria. There are stories of legal aid recipients who turn up in Rolls Royces and other cars, which they say are not theirs and are held on trust for others. Third, there are also cases where the applicants fulfil the means and merits tests but are perceived to be morally undeserving of aid. There has been an uproar in other jurisdictions when such cases are covered by government-funded aid. In Victoria, Australia, around S$950,000, nearly a million dollars, was spent to defend a person by the name of Dragan Vasilijkovic. He was prosecuted for war crimes during the Yugoslav Wars. The first two categories of abuse, we can try and have systems and frameworks to try and detect and deter such practices. The last category is trickier.”
“And we have to structure it in a practical, workable way from the beginning and try and make our criminal legal aid model sustainable. Let me now touch on some other key lessons that we noted from our study of other jurisdictions. First, it is important to structure the Public Defender agency carefully. Good governance is important. The agency can be a part the Government. At the same time, the Public Defenders must be able to carry out their professional duties and defend the recipients of legal aid, where the cases are meritorious. Some jurisdictions have been able to do this. A second concern, as I have said earlier, is to prevent the abuse of the criminal legal aid system. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute an annex to my speech, which I will not go through but will be taken as part of my speech?”
“In Singapore, we have had a very strong partnership with the Law Society and the legal fraternity. They have a very strong probono and public spirit and we want to preserve this cooperative relationship. So, the Victorian model is one way we can do that. I will come back to this later. Let me now move on to funding. Ten of the 11 jurisdictions we studied are fully funded by government. The only exception is Ontario in Canada. There, the Government co-funds the system with the Law Foundation. The Law Foundation is an organisation set up by the legal fraternity. In any system like this, escalating costs are a major concern where criminal legal aid is fully funded by the state. There are various reasons for the increase in costs. They include the lack of a robust means and merits assessment framework and safeguards as coverage expands invariably and inevitably. Second, overbilling by private sector lawyers to whom criminal cases have been outsourced to. I shared an example of escalating costs when I spoke about this in 2020. For example, in Hong Kong, S$217 million was spent on both civil and criminal legal aid in 2016, and that was due to continual increases in lawyers' fees of around 4% to 10% every year. Other jurisdictions also saw similar increases in spending over the last 10 years. After a while, it was no longer sustainable and some of these countries have then had to impose very sudden, drastic cuts to funding. The UK had to do it. In 1996, Ontario cut its legal budget by 22% to control costs. There were adverse consequences which remain today, including delays in clearing cases. We need to learn from these experiences and try to avoid going there and then taking the cutbacks and steps to control costs.”
“They aim to provide criminal legal aid to the most vulnerable persons. I will now set out our observations. In nine of the 11 jurisdictions surveyed, a Public Defender Scheme is in place. The exceptions are Germany and Ontario. They adopt what is called a judicare model, where the cases are outsourced to the private sector for a fee. Our view is that the Public Defender model has some benefits over the judicare model. The Public Defender Scheme allows development of expertise, because institutional knowledge can be built up. In the judicare model, the assignment of counsel is done ad hoc. Second, the greater economies of scale which can better help manage costs. And third, our study shows that in the Public Defender model, there is a specialised office – the Public Defender's Office. Over time, it is better able to access expert witnesses, medical, forensic, analysts and so on. Let me now consider how Public Defender schemes are organised overseas. Other than Ontario, all the common law jurisdictions we studied adopt a hybrid model. This means that the state hires in-house lawyers as Public Defenders and also outsources some cases to private lawyers. This model can strengthen the partnership between the private sector and the Government and widen the pool of expertise that can be tapped. This is a model that we are considering. A strong partnership between the Government and the Criminal Bar is, in my view, quite important. If you look at the state of Victoria in Australia, for example, the Victorian Bar Association has its own probono scheme. They offer advice and representation to persons who cannot obtain legal assistance from any other source. They complement the Public Defenders employed by Victoria Legal Aid.”
“They suggested expanding the coverage of offences, instead of increasing the means-test coverage. They did not want us to cover more people, but they were quite happy to consider whether we can cover more offences. After taking in the feedback, we came to our views. In November 2020, I shared some of our plans. I said that we are not completely satisfied with our current model. I also said that the Government, in principle, prefers the approach of a Public Defender's Office. But there were a few issues to think about. First, we needed to make sure we try and minimise abuse of the system. I gave examples of this from the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. But you will find it in every jurisdiction. Second, to manage costs to ensure fiscal sustainability. Third, maintain our lawyers' probono spirit. I raised these three questions. One, should we change the model we have and go for a full Government-funded legal aid? Two, should we give up our public-private sector partnership model in delivering criminal legal aid? Three, should we expand CLAS beyond the lowest 25% in terms of household income? These are not easy issues. We undertook a study of the different criminal legal aid models in other countries. We looked at 11 jurisdictions: the UK, New Zealand, the two states of New South Wales and Victoria in Australia, the province of Ontario in Canada, Hong Kong, Republic of South Korea, Germany, Japan and the US, at both the New York state level and the federal level. So, it is not just countries, but also territories. And we looked more closely at six of them, namely, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, New South Wales, Victoria, Ontario and Hong Kong. These six jurisdictions share similar common law traditions and philosophies with Singapore.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, in 1956, the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance was passed. It aimed to deliver free civil legal aid to deserving cases. The Ordinance also contained provisions on criminal legal aid. But the latter provisions were not brought into force. That remained the position when we passed the Legal Aid and Advice Act in 1995. In 2013, I gave a speech at the Association of Muslim Lawyers' Inaugural Lecture, and I announced that the Government had decided to directly fund criminal legal aid and we were studying how best to do it. Philosophically, that was a big change. In the end, we decided to do so through CLAS – the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme – run by the Law Society. In March 2015, I announced that the Government would fund CLAS; and for CLAS itself, when we got funding included, some changes were made. First, the means test was redefined, enhanced. It allowed more applicants to qualify for criminal legal aid because the funding was supported by the Government. It directed aid to those who needed it most. Second, an honorarium was paid to CLAS lawyers, to recognise the contribution of volunteers who will take on criminal legal aid cases. However, it has to be said, the honorarium was very nominal. In 2018 and 2019, we started thinking that we could go further, in providing aid. We began reviewing our criminal legal aid model. We engaged the Law Society and the Criminal Bar for their views. We asked if they would support an expansion of criminal legal aid coverage. The Law Society was, in principle, supportive, as was the criminal bar, but they were concerned about the impact on paid work for lawyers – whether this will take away work from lawyers and whether a lawyer's income will suffer.”
“There are many different ways of saying "I don't know", so I assume that Ms Poa is saying either the Party has no position or they do not know what their position is. Thank you, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the question. As I mentioned in Parliament on 3 March this year, since the issue of section 377A was last discussed in Parliament in 2007, societal attitudes towards homosexuality have gradually shifted. There are, currently, two main viewpoints on this issue and many subsidiary viewpoints. As I said in Parliament, there are two main viewpoints. On the one hand, the vast majority of Singaporeans are of the view that heterosexual marriage, between a man and a woman, must remain the bedrock of our society. On the other hand, many Singaporeans, including some of those who believe in the traditional family structure, feel that private consensual sex between men should not be criminalised. The Government has been and will be speaking with diverse groups of Singaporeans to better understand their viewpoints. We will consider the various views carefully and assess the best way forward that tries to balance the different viewpoints. Mr Speaker, Ms Hazel Poa has asked a related question for written answer at this Sitting. Since this is an important issue, I would like to invite Ms Hazel Poa, or any other Parliamentarian from her Party, basically Mr Leong Mun Wai, to state her or their Party’s position on section 377A. It will be good to know.”
“The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) works with its medical service provider to attend to inmates' medical needs. There are daily in-house clinics on weekdays and the prison doctor will attend to inmates who report sick. After office hours, on weekends and on public holidays, nurses and an on-call doctor are available. Inmates may also alert any prison officer at any time if they are feeling unwell, and they will be referred to medical staff for examination. While awaiting the arrival of medical personnel, inmates may also receive first aid and other medical attention from prison officers who are trained to provide such assistance. Inmates can raise with prison officers, if they have any issue with the medical help they are seeking. SPS tracks the medical service provider's response time, for medical emergencies.”
“Security officers are often in positions of trust. They are entrusted with the duty to protect premises, property and persons. The Police make an assessment of all applicants. This will include considering their criminal records, if any. Having a criminal record will mean a much higher bar for the applicant. However, a criminal record is not an absolute bar. Police will look at the nature of the offence, as well as other relevant background. Ex-offenders have been granted licences.”
“Video Recording of Interviews (VRI) was introduced in 2018 for the recording of statements for rape cases. It has since been expanded to include more categories of offences such as aggravated outrage of modesty cases, sexual assault by penetration, child abuse cases, maid abuse cases and non-capital drug-related offences. VRI is more resource-intensive as compared to the traditional method of statement-taking. Transcripts have to be prepared. Accuracy of the transcripts needs to be checked – that is time and resource intensive. Technology such as speech-to-text (Artificial Intelligence) transcription will help reduce the costs and augment manual transcription. But it is not yet at a level where we can use it confidently. MHA is also working to streamline the transcription process. Over time, we hope to expand the use of VRI to more cases.”
“The objective of work programmes is to ensure that inmates stay purposefully engaged, develop positive work ethics and gain useful skills while they are in prison, so as to prepare them to join the workforce upon release. Inmates can choose whether they want to participate in work programmes. For those who choose to participate, they will receive an allowance. The allowance is not meant to be a wage but serves to motivate inmates to perform well and develop themselves while on work programmes. Currently, this ranges from about $0.30 to $2.60 per hour for prison workshops and depends on the requirements of the work programme.”
“The specialist Protection from Harassment Court was operationalised on 1 June 2021. With this, the State Courts have also enhanced their case management system to capture and track data on the following types of harassment: (a) sexual harassment; (b) workplace harassment; (c) cyber-bullying; (d) doxxing; and (e) harassment by debt collectors, moneylenders, or creditors.”
“Those who are assessed to require specialised treatment are housed in the Psychiatric Housing Unit (PHU) within the Changi Prison Complex (CPC). They undergo psychiatric treatment programmes, which include therapy and counselling, conducted by IMH. They are managed by a multi-disciplinary team comprising prison officers, psychiatrists, psychologists and occupational therapists. SPS may also refer inmates to IMH or polyclinics for follow-up care after their release from prison. For inmates whose mental health conditions are severe enough to warrant immediate follow-up, SPS will send them directly to IMH for assessment on the day of their release.”
“Between 2017 and 2021, there was one case of suicide that occurred among suspects, accused persons and convicted persons who were under official custody. We do not track the number of cases among such persons who were not under official custody. There are usually multiple factors, including social and environmental factors, that are unrelated to investigations and convictions that may drive a person to commit suicide. As regards measures, if an accused person is identified to be requiring mental health support, then the person will be referred to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for medical assessment and treatment. In addition, the Police may, when they believe that a suspect or accused person has mental health conditions, refer the person to the Home Team Community Assistance and Referral Scheme (HT CARES). Under this scheme, CARES officers will assess whether social interventions, such as counselling and mental health assistance, are needed. They will then try and assist such persons by considering their situation and whether they need to be referred to further specialised services or IMH. It must be noted that the Police and other investigative agencies’ primary task is to deter crime, investigate and deal with crime. They are not deeply trained in mental health issues. It is important that family members of the accused persons/suspects identify the mental health needs and seek the appropriate mental health assistance for such persons at an early stage. When convicted persons are sentenced to imprisonment, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) will assess their mental health. Inmates diagnosed with mental health needs but whose condition is more stable are housed with the general inmate population and seen regularly by prison psychiatrists.”
“I thank Mr Pritam Singh for both those questions. The first question relates to a survey amongst Singapore residents. We did one in 2019. We do this regularly. And then 2021, on my instructions, a part of the survey specifically focused on mandatory death penalty. Because people may have differing views on death penalty and mandatory death penalty. And the figures I gave were for mandatory death penalty. But having said that, I have to put a caveat, as I said, there is a statistical methodology and this survey has been completed fairly recently, the results are still being analysed. I have been given these figures with a reasonable degree of confidence. When it is finalised, we will make it available, we will make it public, as we have made public previous surveys. There is no issue about that. It will just take the appropriate time and we will release it. Second, the survey that Mr Singh spoke about or referred to my speech, where I spoke about a survey in the region where not a small number, well, many of our drug traffickers come from. The results are known to us. I think it is important and I have given instructions for it to be made public in some form, in a way that will not prejudice Singapore's public interest and foreign policy interest.”
“In a way, I am not sure that we are that far apart because I had anticipated this point, which is why I said that there are two possible ways. One is you replicate the entire resources, that means you have various parts of the Government machinery outside which makes no sense. The alternate is the ombudsman uses the Government machinery. I think Mr Perera overlooks – if he uses the machinery, those machineries sit within the Government. They sit within various Ministries. Then that is the point I make in my earlier response to him. And today, the very same agencies can report directly to the President and I have explained how that is so. So, I do not understand what the argument is. Maybe Mr Perera has not understood the constitutional structure and how the CPIB can go direct to the President.”
“45 pm And he has suggested there should be – no surprises – an outside commission to decide on institutional caning. Over the years, I have listened to the speeches, Mr Leon Perera, in particular. There seems to be a typical solution that is suggested for many different aspects of Government: set up an independent mechanism outside. I mean, reading from his speech on 4 November 2020: "an ombudsman would function as an independent office to investigate complaints about administrative decisions or actions of a public agency, including delay, rudeness, negligence, arbitrariness, inconsistency, oppressive behaviour or unlawfulness". Every aspect of Government, anyone who is unhappy, go to an ombudsman, you have got to then set up an entire huge structure at the taxpayers' expense to investigate this, rather than having a proper legal process, including a complaint system, independent investigations set up, say, by the Police with some outside people sitting on it, or judicial review. In FICA, there was a suggestion of ombudsman. Prisons, another agency. I mean, essentially, we can subcontract many aspects of Government, if we go down this route. And it will not solve the problems, because who guards the guards? So, I would suggest we start with what is working well, what is not working, and for what is not working, how do we better do things. I think these are the things on which there can be positive contributions, and my Ministry will always be open to positive contributions, regardless of who it comes from, whether people in this Chamber, whether from the Government or Opposition, or members of public. If the suggestion is good and valid, we will study it. If it is possible to implement it, we will implement it.”
“So, if you take the senior appointments, including the chief of CPIB, Chief Justice, Attorney-General – all these – there are carefully constructed structures on these appointments. So, I would say, look at all that first and look at the ground situation before we start talking about replicating more and more institutions outside. In contrast, look at countries with a longer runway of democracy. Australia – I stand corrected – but in the short time I had since Mr Leon Perera spoke, the example I found is Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), a state-level agency that reports to the premier; in this case, the case that was highlighted to me, the Prime Minister of New South Wales. If you look at what is the situation in the UK – I am reading from something that says "Institute for Government – Ministerial Code", what does the Code say? All of the Codes, meaning the Codes for Wales, Scotland and UK, give the final authority for decisions about action to be taken to the Prime Minister or First Minister or, in Northern Ireland, the relevant nominating officer for a particular Minister's party. So, it is the prime minister. Since 2006, UK Government Ministerial Code breaches have been investigated through an independent adviser on ministerial interest or by the cabinet secretary, but there is no requirement to follow any particular process. That is the UK situation. And I think the Member will be well aware of the situation in the UK more recently and for some period in the recent past. Here, a second question on caning and whether there was a requirement for those who have been caned to thank the officers after the caning. There is no such requirement. 4.”
“You would think New Zealand's other political parties would be making hay with all this material, but they have been mute. I would ask Members to perhaps do their research before they cite various countries and their institutions as models. Second, here we have an elected Government, which has to govern, and I will come back to this point and explain it a bit later. Third, let me ask, you set up an ombudsman with or without the full suite of resources and without any oversight from the Government, who then deals with misconduct by the ombudsman or the officers within that office? Mr Leon Perera said during the FICA debate "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?", if I recall correctly. For some reason, I think that phrase seems to have lost favour now. Who guards the guards? Take a hypothetical situation: say, you have an organisation, where the top leaders engage in wrongdoing or, for example, say, they set up a disciplinary committee to cover up what they did rather than actually investigate, I think you can ask "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". And if Mr Leon Perera – I suppose if he was part of any such organisation, would be the first one to make such a point. But for the Government, with the systems in place and the variety of people who can lodge complaints and investigate – AGO, Attorney-General, you have CPIB, the Police – civil servants are obliged if they think that a Minister is doing wrong to take it up to a higher authority and, if they believe that the higher authority is not acting properly, they can take it up all the way. And these civil servants are protected through the structure of Public Service Commission, which, in turn, is protected through the fact that appointment cannot be interfered with willy-nilly by the Government.”
“What is our situation – how well we have managed to handle and keep corruption low and official wrongdoing low and how other countries are in this context? Let me just read something from The Guardian, which is I think in January 2020, which wrote about New Zealand and foreign influence: "New Zealand's international reputation for political integrity has taken a battering recently. The country's Minister for Justice Andrew Little admitted last month, like many democracies around the world, ours is vulnerable to those abroad who would seek to interfere in our democratic processes and influence the outcome." I am not going to read the whole article. I will make it available to Members or I will give the reference in a while. A Financial Times article this month said that New Zealand was "on the edge of viability as a member" of its allied relationships because of its "supine attitude towards China" and "compromised political system". New Zealand's National Party Member of Parliament Todd McClay was featured in a report by Freedom House as an example of how they say which foreign government forges relationships with foreign politicians who promote a certain view in local media. McClay is infamous for receiving NZ$150,000 from a China-based businessman, Lang Lin. New Zealand allows donations from New Zealand-registered companies even if they are foreign-owned. The country's new legislation on electoral funding did not include changes to this massive loophole. In 2016, New Zealand was described as "at the heart" of global money laundering. The ease for foreigners to set up a company in the country is one of the reasons why money launderers have been attracted to do business there.”
“CPIB has the resources to carry out the investigations and it has the ability to tap onto other agencies for the appropriate additional help or work that needs to be done. And FICA put in place a framework where interactions cross the line and you become the subject of foreign influence. So, there is a legal basis to act. Mr Leon Perera's suggestion, if I understood him correctly, is that why not we set up a separate ombudsman with the resources to carry out all these investigations? Because he had a question about whether the CPIB was adequately resourced, trained, does it have the ability to handle these matters? So, my inference from that way of phrasing the question is, therefore the agency, whichever agency is set up, must replicate, I suppose, many parts of our law enforcement agencies, including our intel agencies, so that they can do this on a standalone basis. If that is the suggestion, if I understood him correctly, I would suggest it does not make much sense because how do you replicate, and at what cost an entire investigative mechanism outside the Government? And let me make three points. If you only have the ombudsman without this apparatus that I have described, then he or she will go to the law enforcement agencies. Here, in such a situation, the law enforcement agencies can go to the President. That is the check. There is an independent person who can give the directions and who can authorise. Second, Mr Leon Perera referred to New Zealand and I have often found that, we make these references – they sound sexy, but then, when you actually look at what is happening, I find that the debates get very academic, without any grounding in reality, without perhaps either understanding or acknowledging what really happens in Singapore.”
“Results from community corrections continue to be encouraging. In 2021, close to 90% of the inmates who were placed on community-based programmes completed them successfully. Inmates who have completed these programmes have a lower risk of reoffending. Prisons is also developing a Digitalised Learning and Support Package for inmates. The aim is to better prepare inmates for their emplacement in the community. The efforts I have described will not be effective if the community is not willing to give ex-offenders a second chance. YRSG helps with our reintegration efforts and my colleague, Assoc Prof Faishal Ibrahim, will speak about this later. Mr Leon Perera then reprised a part of the FICA debate. At that time, I pointed out to him that, in Singapore, we take investigations very seriously and I explained how the system works and that the Prime Minister can be the subject of independent investigations. He did not respond then, but he has come back to it today. What is our structure? If there is wrongdoing by anyone, whether a Minister or civil servant or private sector person, there will be investigations. Very few people doubt that. And, over the years, we have added on the checks. This Government has added on checks on itself, which are very rare elsewhere. We institutionalised it such that the CPIB can go straight to the Prime Minister but, where the Prime Minister himself is the possible subject of investigations, or if the Prime Minister does not want to do something, the CPIB can go to the President. Not many countries have done this. As I have said, I will come back to this point. Therefore, if there is any wrongdoing or suspected wrongdoing, known to anyone, including suspicion of foreign interference or influence, you can let CPIB know.”
“30 pm Last year, Prisons and Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) worked with ITE to introduce the NITEC in Services – Business Services Programme. The first batch of 29 graduated in February this year. Under the TAP and Grow initiative, training academies in prison have been set up in partnership with the media, precision engineering and logistics sectors. Inmates will be offered jobs by the partner employers upon release. Twenty-eight inmates completed the training and graduated with diplomas in media courses. Some of them have since been released and they are working in media-related jobs. Others are waiting for job interviews. There were 30 inmates from the first batch of training programmes for precision engineering and logistics and about 650 inmates will benefit from the TAP and Grow initiative in these three sectors every year. This year, YRSG does aim to make the initiative bigger and go into the food services sector. YRSG has also developed a digital literacy masterplan for inmates to gain basic digital skills in prison so that they are better prepared for the job market upon release. An estimated 750 inmates will be trained in basic digital skills each year. YRSG has also partnered IMDA to roll out digital skills training for older residents at the Selarang Halfway House and this training helps with digital services, including Government services and financial services. The fourth aspect I want to mention is community corrections. Research has shown that there are better rehabilitation outcomes when rehabilitation in prison is complemented by community-based programmes. And Prisons has been expanding community corrections. As at end of 2021, there were about 3,400 supervisees undergoing rehabilitation in the community, double the number from five years ago.”
“Inmates may have rehabilitation needs, including relating to substance abuse, anti-social attitudes, interpersonal violence, sexual violence and other mental health needs. So, our experts will look at these issues. The second aspect is working with the family. Strong family support is essential in the rehabilitation and re-integration journey. Prisons conducts programmes, social skills training programme and the Family Reintegration Programme (FRP). The aim is to help the inmates link up, bond with their family, strengthen the bonds with their family and loved ones. Prisons also works with community partners, for example, Centre for Fathering, The Salvation Army and New Life Stories, to facilitate family bonding programmes for inmates and their children. Some families may also face difficulties during the inmates’ incarceration. Prisons proactively refers families of inmates who require assistance to Family Service Centres. In the broader community, grassroots volunteers are roped in to support families impacted by incarceration. Today, there are over 1,200 grassroots volunteers under the Yellow Ribbon Community Project, involving all 93 divisions across Singapore. Third is the Skills Training and Employment Assistance. This is a key focus. Having a stable job upon release reduces the risk of re-offending. Mr Mark Chay asked about the success of the Train and Place (TAP) and Grow Initiative. The TAP and Grow initiative works on equipping inmates with skills to secure and sustain jobs. He also asked if there are plans to expand this initiative. The Prison School deals with inmates. They can go for academic programmes while in prison. Programmes range from GCE to diploma and degree programmes. 4.”
“One key aspect of that is rehabilitation. So, let me talk about the different aspects of it. As part of rehabilitation, we have moved to alternate types of sentencing. Annex C lists some of the types of orders which our Courts can make for minor offences. The Courts can consider these in appropriate cases, instead of traditional sentences, such as imprisonment or fine. They are the: Mandatory Treatment Order (MTO), Day Reporting Order (DRO), Community Work Order (CWO), Community Service Order (CSO) and Short Detention Order (SDO). A second aspect is rehabilitation within prison. Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about our efforts to improve the employability of inmates and our work with the community in bringing down recidivism rates. Our two-year recidivism rate is the lowest it has been. 20% for the most recent release cohort. It is one of the lowest for comparable cities around the world. But there is more to be done. The five-year recidivism rate for the 2016 release cohort is higher, at 41%. It has gone down a little bit over the years, but we want to try and bring it down further. There are some factors that can lead to a successful reintegration in the long term. These include stable employment, positive pro-social networks and personal motivation to seek help and contribute to society. When inmates are admitted to prison, they have their risks and needs identified and undergo appropriate programmes to address them. There are four broad areas: one, psychology-based correctional programmes; two, family programmes; three, skills training and employment assistance; and four, community corrections. Under psychology-based correctional programmes, correctional rehabilitation specialists and psychologists do intervention programmes for inmates.”
“We prefer not to have to impose the DP on anyone, but we must continue to do what is best for us as a national policy. Mr Murali Pillai also asked whether we would consider allowing issuance of Certificates of Substantive Assistance (CSA) to offenders when the case is before the Court of Appeal, instead of before their trial. The purpose of the CSA is to encourage offenders to come clean and to provide assistance before trial, provide assistance to CNB in breaking down criminal gangs, drug gangs. The purpose will be undermined, if we allow offenders to fight a case, put up a defence based on other legal arguments and then offer the information later and ask for a CSA. So, we do not intend to make that move. So, that is what I have to say on DP. Given the time available, I have not said everything I would like to have said. Let me now move on to the second part of my speech, which is rehabilitation. There is a tendency to think of the Singapore system as being tough. I do not blame Members because I have just spent, I think the last 20 minutes or so explaining why we need to be tough on drug offenders. But to describe it simply as tough is not a complete and accurate descriptor. We have to be tough on drugs, but the complete picture, even on drugs, is not about just being tough. We are tough on those that we have to be tough on. That is, the drug traffickers. But, for example, drug abusers, we try to not even treat them as criminals. We, instead, treat their drug dependency through a variety of means. Without a criminal record, if their situation is that they are only drug abusers and have not committed any other crime. And our criminal justice system has evolved quite substantially to help those who have gotten onto the wrong side.”
“I am not seeking to draw a direct comparison. There are many other reasons for homelessness in these places. But just note, the homeless also have addiction and drug abuse problems and some of that will spill over; when people cannot live with others because of drug abuse problems, they will spill out onto the streets and crime will go up. If you look in the UK, we see similar problems. In Sheffield, for example, the drug problem has led to an increase in violent and armed crime. Innocent children get killed. The number of people dying of drug-related deaths in Sheffield has tripled between 2010 and 2020. Now, let me turn to outcomes in Singapore. Mr Murali Pillai asked whether there was a worsening of the drug situation. My answer is that the number of drug abusers in Singapore remains low, though there are some worrying trends. The number of new drug abusers is higher than we would like it to be. I had earlier shared how the number of abusers arrested in Singapore has, over the years, gone down, and how that is also linked to low crime. Drugs are not the sole cause of murders, violence or crime. When we look at the overseas examples, a variety of other factors shape safety in cities, including the availability of guns, how effective the criminal justice system and the police are, and many other factors. But in my view, drug abuse and the prevalence of drug gangs are an important contributing factor and it links up to quite a lot of other factors. So, by being tough on drug offences, we minimise the harms of drugs in our society. If we removed the DP, I have no doubt, more drug syndicates and traffickers will bring larger amounts of drugs into Singapore. Singaporeans and their families will suffer.”
“In the 1990s, CNB arrested about 6,000 abusers per year. Now, it arrests about 3,000 to 3,500 per year. It has not become less effective, it is just that we have managed to reduce the number of people who engage in drug abuse. It is a large number of people, potential abusers, whose lives have been saved. And it is not just them, if you consider their families. So, many more have been saved. And crime has been kept low in Singapore because the drugs abuse situation has been kept low. Singapore does well in measures of safe cities, such as the Gallup survey and the Safe Cities Index. But if we change the laws, we cannot expect crime to remain low. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] The drug problem has also contributed to the homelessness situation in many major US cities. The tents that were in Skid Row in LA now covers many blocks, and this is what it looks like. Chairman, can I have your permission to play video three please?”
“There are some who will say, "We are not talking about decriminalisation in Singapore". They will say our laws are already adequate. We are talking only about removing the DP or MDP; keep all the other tough laws. My response is this. First of all, I gave you the survey results. Removing the DP and what impact it will have, psychologically. Second, we have never said that the DP or MDP alone is sufficient. It is, however, a key part of our system and approach to deal with drug trafficking. You need many different things to keep Singapore relatively free from drugs. Good intelligence, strong enforcement, stiff punishments, rehabilitation for offenders, and deterrence. And you heard earlier what people in the region say, what convicted drug traffickers say about the DP being a very strong deterrent. So, I am telling Members we have to think very carefully about this before removing any part of this framework or going soft. Those who advise for removal often compare us with countries which have already lost the drug war. I am not sure if they understand the consequences or choose not to understand them. Because the consequences are plain for everyone to see. It is not rocket science. Mdm Chairman, with your permission, can I have another video played on the situation in San Francisco from a former abuser?”
“In many countries, including in Singapore, there is a small group who will bring out sob stories on the drug traffickers and their parents and how they should not face the penalties that the law provides. Their parents will be put on display crying. What about the babies? What about the innocent children? Who speaks for them? Huge numbers of babies are born in withdrawal and addiction, and these drug traffickers profit from destroying these children and their families. Where should our sympathies be placed? Based on the 2017 data, nearly 80 newborns are diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS) every day. This is a snapshot, what you saw, of what it looks like. We have largely not had this in Singapore. It is news to us. So, those who ask us to abolish the death penalty should answer these questions. Madam, may I seek your permission to play a second video now? This is a situation in San Francisco. If it gets to that situation, it will be too late.”
“Mr Vikram Nair and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked how Singapore compared with countries that did not have DP for drug offences. Well, let me answer it in a broader way. Let us take a look at other cities around the world, some of which have taken a softer stance on drugs and some are going or have already gone down the path of legalisation. See the examples from the US and the UK in Annex B-1 and Annex B-2. A CDC report estimates that more than 100,000 drug overdose deaths in the US took place in the one-year period ending April 2021. In Delaware, one of the places most affected by drug abuse in the US, more than 2,300 people have died of drug overdoses since 2016. That is about the number of people who have also died of COVID-19 in Delaware, since the beginning of the pandemic until end of 2021. In Baltimore, spending on drugs is estimated at an incredible US$165 million, with over 19,000 heroin users. That is just heroin. People are caught in brutal, vicious cycles. Criminal records and poor job prospects push them into the drug trade. And violence is part and parcel of their lives; either they use violence or it is used on them. And the impact of drugs on innocent children and babies is rarely ever discussed. With your permission, Mdm Chairman, may I display a video on the screen? I think it is useful for Members to watch this video.”
“This had influenced their drug trafficking behaviour and it is consistent with the survey I spoke about earlier in the region. One of the traffickers in this study said the following: he knew very clearly that if he were caught for trafficking a small amount, he would just go to jail for trafficking. But if he was caught with a larger amount, he would be at risk of the death penalty. And so he trafficked below the threshold amount. Mr Murali Pillai also asked if Singaporeans continued to support the use of the DP. That is my third point, the majority of Singapore residents support the use of the DP and agree that the DP deters serious crimes. In 2019, our MHA survey showed very strong support for the DP. We conducted a follow-up survey in 2021, with a segment specifically on MDP. The results are still being analysed. So, my statements on that are preliminary. On the question as to whether the MDP is appropriate: 81% said it was appropriate for intentional murder; 71% said it was appropriate for firearm offences; 66% said that it was appropriate for drug trafficking; and more than 80% also believed that the DP had deterred the commission of these offences in Singapore. But it is not just a question of survey results, whether more people agree or less people agree. If, as policy-makers, having studied the issues and the facts, we believe this is the right thing to do, then it is our duty, both mine and Members, if you are convinced, to try and persuade people on what is the right course of action. In the end, we also have to lead by persuading, explaining and if we are wrong, then the counter-arguments prevail. I will now move to my fourth point on the wider harm of drugs and why we take a firm stance.”
“"; 69% in the region believe that the DP is more effective in discouraging people from committing serious crimes compared to life imprisonment; 83% believed that the DP makes people not to want to traffic substantial amount of drugs into Singapore – 83%. I emphasise this – these are the places from which many of our traffickers come from. You remove the death penalty, that number, 83%, will surely be reduced because there is money to be made. Just go back to the second question, 69% believe that DP is more effective than life imprisonment. It is a fair assumption to say that more people will traffic drugs into Singapore, more drugs will enter into Singapore, there will be more drug abusers in Singapore and more Singaporean families and individuals will be harmed, if we remove the DP, in particular, the mandatory death penalty (MDP). It is a stark choice for Singaporeans. So, those who campaign against the DP ought to answer these questions. These are debates we can have in society, but they ought to answer these questions and deal with them and face up to them squarely, and then debate on that basis. Public policy requires making choices. My view is that Singaporean lives and livelihoods, a large number of that, will be at risk. That is why we have taken a tough line on this. Second, the introduction of the DP has also changed the behaviour of drug traffickers. In 1990, the Government introduced the MDP for trafficking in more than 1.2 kilogrammes of opium. Comparing the four years before and after, there was a 66% reduction in the average net weight trafficked. In a 2018 study conducted by MHA, we found a very high level of awareness of the DP amongst convicted drug traffickers.”