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 37 of 92.
“Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Shahira Abdullah, Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr Murali Pillai have raised a number of queries regarding the Attorney-General (AG)'s right to intervene. Let me make some broad points before addressing the specific queries. First, as my colleague Minister Edwin Tong mentioned in Parliament yesterday, the statutory framework is based on the established role of the AG. He is the Guardian of the public interest. This has been recognised by our Courts as well as by Members who have spoken on this Bill and previously. The proposed amendments are consistent with that principle. The Court of Appeal, for example, has noted that the AG intervenes on a non-partisan basis. He is disinterested in the interests of the parties to the litigation. The issues that he raises most logically, must have a discernible impact beyond the specific parties and the specific dispute before the Court. Second, it is important to understand the context in which this proposal arises. Let us say you have a civil case between two parties. Prima facie, nothing to do with the state, or the public. But in the course of the dispute or from the pleadings, or in the course of the arguments, issues arise which, potentially, are detrimental to the public interest. For example, the AG has intervened on the applicable legal test for negligence in relation to the provision of medical advice, in the case of Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin, between two parties. But the test that is laid out by the Courts on what amounts to negligence will impact on future claims on the basis of medical negligence. So, it will impact both patients and doctors, and they cannot come forward and intervene in this case. The only party who can do so in the public interest is the AG.”
“Mr Zhulkarnain also asked about the consolidation of proceedings under SICC and whether similar considerations would apply if one proceeding is in a different Court from SICC. The consolidation of proceedings under SICC may require different considerations, as parties would have already commenced separate proceedings. If proceedings are not before the same Court, but a party believes that an application for consolidation is necessary, then a transfer application should be taken out to bring the proceedings before the same Court, before applying for any consolidation. Mr Zhulkarnain also pointed out the joinder of a non-consenting party to SICC proceedings, and spoke about the enforcement of an SICC judgment in a foreign jurisdiction. It is possible for a party to be joined to existing proceedings before SICC without that party's consent; just like it is possible for a party to be joined to existing proceedings before the High Court or the State Courts without that party's consent. There are rules on how that takes place. But, of course, the requirements for proper service on that party will still apply. With regard to enforcement, the enforcement of a SICC judgment against a party, who has been properly served, but has not submitted to SICC's jurisdiction, will be similar to the enforcement of a judgment issued by the General Division of the High Court against a party that has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the General Division. As with any judgment of the General Division of the High Court, an SICC judgment is likely to be enforceable in major commercial jurisdiction and many other regional ones. There are standard laws on how this takes place.”
“Lastly, on Mr Louis Ng's question on how MinLaw supports the growth of private mediation service providers, MinLaw's role is to ensure a conducive environment for our dispute resolution ecosystem to thrive. We work closely with mediation service providers, such as Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC), Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) and so on, to ensure that their service offerings address the different user needs and complement the Court-based dispute resolution mechanisms. We also have the Singapore International Mediation Institute (SIMI). It looks at accreditation and mediation standards to support professionalising mediation. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked about security for costs in the context of an application for freestanding interim relief. A defendant may apply for security for the defendant's costs of the action, on the basis that the applicant has no nexus or assets in Singapore. On vessel arrests, these fall outside the scope of freestanding interim relief that the General Division can grant. This is consistent with the UK position. Mr Zhulkarnain sought clarification regarding the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC)'s jurisdiction. He asked when the action, and the counterclaim taken as a whole, would still maintain an international and commercial character. The assessment cannot be a purely quantitative one. The Court will have to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances, assess whether the counterclaim, third-party proceedings change the nature or substance of the action in such a way that the action, seen as a whole, no longer maintains an international or commercial nature.”
“But in deciding whether to order parties to attempt amicable resolution, the Courts will take into account all the facts before them, including whether any of the parties have refused to attempt to resolve the dispute by amicable resolution, and why. Where necessary, the Courts may require the parties or their counsel to explain why the matter cannot be settled amicably. Mr Louis Ng asked whether Registrars will be required to undergo training in mediation and other alternative dispute resolution processes (ADR), and whether there will be a minimum requirement that must be met and who the Court-appointed mediators will be. In the State Courts, mediation may be conducted by specially-trained District Judges or Court Volunteer Mediators. The District Judges are experienced trial judges. They have extensive experience in mediation and other ADR processes, and they undergo continuous training in ADR. As for Court Volunteer Mediators, they must minimally be an Associate Mediator with the Singapore Mediation Centre with at least three years of mediation experience. Alternatively, they should minimally hold a Level 3 qualification as a Singapore International Mediation Institute Accredited Mediator. For the Supreme Court, a Registrar conducting ADR, or a Court-appointed mediator, will similarly be trained in the particular ADR processes. Mr Louis Ng asked if there are plans to set up an equivalent of the State Courts' Court Dispute Resolution Cluster in the Supreme Court. Given the nature of the disputes and the value of the claims filed in the Supreme Court, there are no immediate plans to do so.”
“Dr Shahira Abdullah mentioned that under the amendments to the Administration of Justice Protection Act, litigants and lawyers will now be prohibited from making their own non-official audio transcripts of Court proceedings. The amendments under this Bill do not change the underlying position today. Today, it is already contempt of the Court to record physical Court proceedings. The amendments simply update the provisions so that unauthorised recordings of remote Court proceedings will likewise be in contempt. Mr Louis Ng asked a number of questions. One, on the scope of the Court's powers to order parties to attempt amicable resolution. An attempt at amicable resolution may be appropriate where strict legal remedies may not necessarily address the underlying concerns and interests of parties or where litigation is not cost effective. Second, where parties have gone through formal processes, such as mediation, neutral evaluation, settlement negotiations with exchange of draft settlement agreements, these are all likely to constitute clear attempts at amicable resolution. Third, Mr Louis Ng asked how the Court will ensure that parties will make good faith attempts at amicable resolution and what would be the consequences of non-compliance with the Court's direction to attempt such amicable resolution. Mr Desmond Choo also sought clarification on whether the Court will consider the intentions of the parties before exercising the powers. The short answer to Mr Louis Ng's question is that it is not easy to ensure good faith negotiations.”
“If parties prefer the matter to be heard on paper, they can inform the Court. The Court, ultimately, has the final say but it will take this into account when considering whether to proceed with a paper hearing. Second, on the benefits of paper hearings. It, obviously, saves costs and time, provided the matter can be dealt with through a paper hearing. Third, Mr Zhulkarnain asked whether there can be a fast track for the case management of paper hearings. That, really, has got to depend on each case, its nature, complexity and how prepared parties are for a speedier management of the case. Fourth, Mr Zhulkarnain asked about paper hearings in criminal proceedings. In the context of remote hearings, Mr Sharael Taha also underscored the need to be mindful of the human aspect in criminal matters. So, we have to make sure the use of paper or asynchronous hearings do not undermine the accused's right to be heard. This Bill protects the accused's right to be heard. The Courts will exercise the discretion to conduct paper or asynchronous hearings judiciously. Mr Murali Pillai also raised a query on how the Courts will ensure that litigants-in-persons (LIPs) are not disadvantaged by remote or paper hearings. LIPs who have concerns with using remote technology or with a paper hearing can notify the Courts. LIPs will be encouraged to take advantage of remote or paper hearing processes but, ultimately, it is an option for them. If a litigant does not have the equipment or Internet connectivity, he can, of course, come to Court to use in-Court facilities that do cater for remote hearings. The Courts have published detailed guidelines on the conduct of remote hearings. Users may also reach out to the Courts to get help.”
“We aim to integrate the platform with commonly used technology solutions like practice management solutions, document management solutions, communication tools like WhatsApp and Microsoft Teams and Government systems like LawNet, eLitigation and ACRA that lawyers commonly interact with. This platform will be a one-stop shop to help lawyers access key functions from such solutions and systems more seamlessly. We aim to introduce the platform to the industry in phases, starting from the first quarter of 2022. We are also putting together an Industry Digital Plan, which will provide a step-by-step guide for lawyers to assess their own digital readiness and provide information on the technology solutions commonly used by lawyers, which will be mapped to different stages of digital maturity. The industry digital plan will be launched in tandem with the legal technology platform. On Ms Hany Soh's question about defraying hardware costs, generally, the Government does not favour any particular group, say, lawyers and so on, to buy equipment for their practices. But we made an exception last year because of COVID-19. We worked to provide 80% funding support for all SMEs, including law firms, to procure laptops and commonly used software, such as Microsoft Office. On the provision of physical space, there are already many spaces within existing courthouses which lawyers can utilise to meet with their clients. As for filing fees, we agree. Filing fees should be reasonable. We will pass the feedback onto the Courts. Moving on to paper hearings, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim sought clarifications on paper hearings. Let me take each of his questions in turn. First, whether parties can opt in for paper hearings.”
“Ms Hany Soh proposed the creation of a virtual Court platform with an integrated chat function and a dynamic queue system and she explained the benefits of it. The Courts are working on several improvements that are aligned with Ms Soh's suggestions. First, there will be a new queue management system. It will allow the judge to re-sequence parties according to some specified criteria. There may also be a forecast of the number of cases which are pending, which can be made visible to all. Second, the Courts are also enhancing the SG Courts app to allow for formal "on the record" discussions between lawyers and the Court. Ms Soh has also asked about assistance schemes for smaller law firms to defray the cost of purchasing virtual hearing equipment. She has also asked whether filing fees can be reviewed and whether the Courts are able to provide more spaces for practitioners to communicate with their clients in-person. She did mention that MinLaw has been working on initiatives to help law firms, especially the smaller ones, ramp up their use of technology. These efforts include Tech-celerate for Law and Tech Start for Law, as Ms Soh has pointed out. We will build on these to further help law firms adopt technology and transit to remote hearings. This will also help with their transition onto the electronic Court systems. Major initiatives that law firms can look forward to will be a Legal Tech Platform which will enable, in an affordable way, law practices and lawyers to work anytime, anywhere. This is a matters management tool designed specifically around legal workflows. My Ministry is actively working on this.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who spoke in support of the Bill. Let me address their questions now. First, on the protocols for proceedings via video-link. Mr Louis Ng asked whether the way that live video proceedings are conducted can be standardised. He mentioned the need to maintain the security and integrity of Court proceedings. The specific ways for participation in remote hearings are published in the Registrar's circulars and set out on the Courts' websites. The specific protocol that applies may vary, depending, for example, on the type of case and the litigants involved. On the security and integrity of proceedings, the Courts have protocols in place. We will take the point and emphasise this to the Courts. Mr Murali Pillai asked how conversations between accused persons in prison and their counsel joining in from another location will be kept confidential and how accused persons will continue to have access to lawyers during remote proceedings. The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) has a set of purpose-built video-link facilities. In the course of a remote hearing, over Zoom or tele-presence, SPS will facilitate the private consultation sessions between accused persons and their lawyers. These can be done through the telephone, a virtual breakout room on Zoom or a separate cubicle with a Zoom session between the accused person and his lawyer. Mr Desmond Choo expressed concern with the rise of deepfake technology and the impersonation of parties or witnesses. The actions mentioned by Mr Choo are, of course, criminal offences. In terms of safeguards, the Courts are considering adopting new identification technologies. They are planning for them under the National Digital Identity project.”
“Between 29 January 2021 and 28 July 2021, there were 26 applications received for the Simplified Winding Up Programme (SWUP). Of these, seven applications were successfully emplaced on the programme, 17 applications are being assessed for suitability for the programme and the remaining two applications were rejected. To date, we have not received any application for the Simplified Debt Restructuring Programme (SDRP). As part of the eligibility criteria for the SWUP, the annual sales turnover of the applicant companies cannot exceed $10 million. The median annual revenue of the applicant companies, based on the companies’ latest financial accounts, is $30,000. The median debt of the companies as provided at the point of application is $200,000. Given the uncertain business outlook, the application period for both the SWUP and SDRP has been extended for an additional 12 months till 28 July 2022 to continue to assist eligible financially-distressed micro and small companies to rehabilitate their businesses or to wind up their businesses in a simple, faster and lower-cost manner.”
“Since the passing of the amendments to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) in October 2019, MHA has been working on developing the systems and processes that will facilitate the required disclosures and reporting by religious groups. We have also been conducting user testing on the new systems. We are working towards operationalising the amendments to the MRHA by early 2022.”
“The Independent Review Panel (IRP) has been convened on six occasions since its inception. Cases referred to the IRP are those where allegations of serious misconduct have been made against Home Team Officers acting in their official capacities, such as neglect of duty or abuse of powers, but short of criminal conduct. In these cases internal investigations had been carried out. Where the allegations suggest criminal conduct, criminal investigations and court prosecution will be initiated and there would be no necessity to go through with the IRP process. The IRP was satisfied on all six occasions that the internal investigations conducted by the Home Team Departments were thorough and fair. It had also provided recommendations to improve some procedures. Following the recommendations, Home Team Departments had taken steps to address them: (a) Police reviewed its training programmes on the management of difficult subjects by frontline officers, its handling of persons-in-custody at hospitals and the standard operating procedures on filing and classification of cases; and (b) CNB reviewed its standard operating procedures and training on internal investigations to ensure that internal investigations are thorough and robust. The IRP’s current chairman is Mr Richard Magnus, a retired senior district judge. As stated earlier, if the conduct is assessed to be potentially criminal, the Court process will take over and the matter will be in public domain. The internal investigations (referred to above) and the IRP deal with other disciplinary or process breach related issues. The Ministry will follow up on the findings, act on them. To the extent relevant, they will also be picked up by the AGO and made public.”
“The SGSecure app was launched in 2016 and about three million devices have been equipped or downloaded with the SGSecure app since. The number of reports made through the app have been increasing steadily, from 6,000 reports in 2017 to 14,000 reports last year. These include reports alerting the authorities to sightings of suspicious individuals or behaviour, individuals suspected to be armed with weapons, unattended or suspicious bags and packages, as well as individuals showing signs of radicalisation or religious extremism. We do not track prank reports, most of which were sent anonymously. Nonetheless, our assessment is that the number is quite low. To date, three persons have been warned for intentionally sending false information via the SGSecure app.”
“Cryptocurrency investment scams, in particular, was a key focus area for MoneySense’s recent campaign from April to June 2021. Besides highlighting the risks of investing in cryptocurrencies, the campaign featured key messages about the risks of dealing with unregulated entities, and to always “Ask, Check and Confirm” before making investments. Should consumers choose to invest in or trade cryptocurrencies, they are advised to check if the entities they deal with are regulated by MAS. Regulated entities have to comply with anti-money laundering and terrorism financing requirements, which means that they would have to put in place measures, such as performing customer due diligence and transaction monitoring, to reduce the risk of illicit actors transacting through them. Regulated entities are also required to put in place security measures to guard against cyber attacks. These entities would have to report any suspicious transactions to the Police. The public may refer to the following resources found on MAS’s website: (a) the Financial Institutions Directory – a list of financial institutions regulated by MAS and the activities they are authorised to provide; (b) the Register of Representatives – a list of individuals who conduct activities regulated by MAS; and (c) the Investor Alert List – a list of unregulated entities who, based on the information received by MAS, may have been wrongly perceived as being licensed or authorised by MAS.”
“To more effectively combat cryptocurrency scams and crimes, the Police established the Cryptocurrency Task Force in 2018 to monitor the cryptocurrency landscape; develop and improve operational procedures in the investigation and seizing of cryptocurrencies; and establish working relationships with overseas law enforcement agencies, industry professionals and academic experts in cryptocurrencies. The Task Force works closely with the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), which regulates entities that deal in or facilitate the exchange of cryptocurrencies or Digital Payment Tokens (DPTs) in Singapore under the Payment Services Act. The Task Force also has links with the Association of Crypto Currency Enterprises and Start-ups Singapore (ACCESS), a Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Industry Association that aims to foster dialogue between Singaporean cryptocurrency and blockchain businesses and other relevant public and private sector stakeholders. The Police also work with the various cryptocurrency exchanges based locally and abroad to investigate into cryptocurrency crimes. Enforcement against cryptocurrency-related scams and crimes alone is insufficient. Public awareness and vigilance are key to preventing more people from falling prey to such scams. MAS has issued numerous advisories warning consumers of the risks of investing in and trading cryptocurrencies, given their highly speculative nature. MAS and the Police have also issued public advisories alerting consumers to fraudulent websites soliciting cryptocurrency investments. In addition, MoneySense has ongoing outreach initiatives to alert consumers to the risks of investing in cryptocurrencies, through articles, campaigns and regular posts on Facebook and Instagram.”
“As of 20 August 2021, about 200,000 iOS users have downloaded ScamShield. The National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) and GovTech are currently developing an Android version, which is expected to be ready by the end of this year. We use various channels to inform our seniors about 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 various outreach platforms. Senior citizens are encouraged to download ScamShield during these sessions. Volunteer Crime Prevention Ambassadors from NCPC also share about ScamShield with residents, including senior citizens, during their engagements. We also work with partner agencies. For example, as part of the “SG Cyber Safe Seniors” programme launched in June 2021 by the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore, Infocomm Media Development Authority and the Singapore Police Force, the outreach collaterals and webinars included references to the Scam Alert website (www.scamalert.sg) where ScamShield is featured.”
“The various support schemes and training packages to assist Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who have been affected by COVID-19 are available to all persons who meet the eligibility criteria, including those who might have worked in the sex industry. It is indeed possible that such workers and others may engage in underground illegal sexual activities, using a variety of means and fronts. The way this is dealt with is through enforcement operations against vice activities, including online vice activities and vice activities offered at other places (for example, massage establishments).”
“Foreign actors may use bots or inauthentic accounts to launch hostile information campaigns (HICs) to manipulate viewpoints in other countries’ domestic politics. Our security agencies have been keeping abreast of developments in cyber technology that may be exploited for such purposes. They have deployed early detection systems which can surface anomalies or patterns in network activity to alert agencies to such threats. MHA has also introduced new legislation to guard against foreign interference.”
“The total transaction value of the 89 reports of fraudulent card transactions was $550,500.”
“Earlier this year, SPS conducted a qualitative study involving third- and subsequent-time drug abusers in the DRC. Participants who had previously undergone the LT regime reported that under the DRC regime, they are better able to maintain family ties and reintegrate back into society, compared to the previous times when they were incarcerated for long periods under the LT regime.”
“In 2019, MHA introduced changes to strengthen the drug rehabilitation regime. Third and subsequent-time drug abusers who have not committed other concurrent offences are channelled to the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) for treatment and rehabilitation, instead of being charged in court and sentenced to long-term imprisonment (LT regime). The DRC regime consists of an in-care phase and a community-based programme (CBP) phase. During the in-care phase, drug abusers go through programmes such as psychology-based correctional programmes, employability skills training, family programmes and religious programmes. They may then be emplaced on CBP and serve the remainder of their detention in the community under supervision, as part of a step-down approach to facilitate their reintegration into society. The two-year recidivism rate — defined as the percentage of local inmates under the custody of Singapore Prison Service (SPS) who are subsequently detained or sentenced to either imprisonment or day reporting order within two years of release into the community — is a key measure of the effectiveness of SPS’ rehabilitation policies and programmes. The two-year period is widely used internationally as a benchmark for recidivism. From January 2019 to December 2020, 3,985 drug abusers were admitted into DRC. And 1,759, or 44.1%, were third- or subsequent-time abusers. As at end-December 2020, 654 third- or subsequent-time drug abusers had completed their in-care phase and had been released into the community. The two-year recidivism rate for this group will only be available in 2023, as that is when they would have completed two full years in the community. In the interim, there are some early indications that the 2019 changes support rehabilitation.”
“The video has garnered more than 200,000 views thus far. One of CNB’s key partners is the National Council Against Drug Abuse (NCADA). CNB and NCADA engage community partners and volunteers through the United Against Drugs Coalition (UADC) and Anti-Drug Abuse Advocacy Network, or A3 Network. The UADC rallies support from local organisations to raise awareness of drug abuse in our society, while the A3 Network brings together individuals from different walks of life to educate and empower them to advocate for a drug-free Singapore. As of August 2021, CNB has 1,108 A3 advocates, out of which 237 are youths and 73 partner organisations under the UADC. In addition to PDE efforts, MHA constantly reviews its laws to ensure that they remain effective. In 2019, amendments were made to the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) to criminalise acts of contamination which facilitate or promote drug abuse, as well as to better protect children and young persons from the harms of drugs.”
“Preventive drug education (PDE) is the first line of defence in the Central Narcotics Bureau’s (CNB) drug control approach. Through its PDE initiatives, CNB aims to increase public awareness of the harms of drugs and encourage the adoption of a drug-free lifestyle. To inoculate youths specifically, CNB works closely with MOE to incorporate PDE contents into the school syllabus. CNB also engages students through talks, sharing sessions, exhibitions, skits and the After-School Engagement (ASE) programme. In 2020, in spite of the COVID-19 situation, 66% of Primary and Secondary schools participated in at least one PDE programme. For post-Secondary youths, CNB fosters a participatory process through co-creating projects with the students. Through this, youths are encouraged to think about the long-term impact of drug abuse and advocate against a drug-tolerant culture from taking root in Singapore. For example, in July 2021, "Monomania" was launched on the Singapore Polytechnic (SP) campus. This was a collaborative project between SP students and CNB to deliver the anti-drug message through an exhibition using projection mapping technology, to provide an immersive audio-visual experience showing the effects of drugs on the body. CNB works with the Singapore Armed Forces, Singapore Police Force and Singapore Civil Defence Force to engage full-time national servicemen (NSFs). For instance, PDE toolkits and message cards with bite-sized information are provided to NS commanders so that they can engage NSFs under their charge on drug issues. Social media is another key engagement channel. In May 2021, CNB released the "Down the Rabbit Hole" video, which illustrates the calculated business motivations of drug dealers and how drugs abusers are mere "revenue streams".”
“As of end 2020, 1,924 local inmates, that is, those who were Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents, or 20.5% of the local inmate population, were aged above 55 years old. The number of local inmates who were 55 years old and below as of end 2020 but would be more than 55 years old upon their release, is 492. They formed 5.2% of the local inmate population. In 2020, there were 1,344 local inmates who were above 55 years old at the point of release. And 56.1% and 72.4% of these inmates found employment within three and six months of their release respectively. These numbers are likely an underestimation, as the data was based on CPF records and thus did not include persons in jobs which do not provide for CPF contributions, such as food delivery riders and private hire car drivers. For local ex-offenders aged above 55 years old and who were employed within six months of their release, their three-month and six-month job retention rates are 81.6% and 42.5% respectively.”
“MHA takes a very serious view of the cases involving possible irregularities in the supporting documents produced by MHA’s contractors for AGO’s audits. In this connection, Police reports were lodged against two contractors. In the first case, the contractor was charged in court on 27 July 2021. In the second case, the contractor was given a 12-month conditional warning on 19 August 2021. MHA is leveraging technology in the management of facilities management. In particular, MHA will be enhancing its enterprise Integrated Logistics Management System (iLMS) to enhance the contract administration process, such as the digitalisation of records and monitoring of the work processes for facilities management. Our processes will generally ensure that contractual requirements are met. Cost recovery is effected when there is non-compliance. But as hon Members will understand, once in a while, someone will get around the system. We will take action against such people, when they are found out.”
“Since 1999, the Traffic Police (TP) has required all heavy vehicles, with a maximum laden weight greater than 12,000 kilogrammes, to be installed with speed limiters which impose a speed limit of 60 kilometre per hour. From 1999 to 2020, 24 cases of tampering of speed limiters were prosecuted and convicted. This is an offence under the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Speed Limiters) Rules. First-time offenders are liable for an imprisonment term of up to three months or a fine of up to $1,000. Repeat offenders are liable for an imprisonment term of up to six months or a fine of up to $2,000. TP only started tracking the breakdown of speeding violations for those committed by heavy vehicles with speed limiters from 2011 and therefore is not able to provide a before-and-after comparison since the start of the speed limiter regime in 1999.”
“From 2016 to 2020, the Traffic Police (TP) detected a total of 19,758 speeding violations involving Singapore-registered lorries. This comprises lorries that were caught travelling at a speed higher than either its vehicle or the road speed limit. The yearly breakdown of these speeding violations are as follows: Among these speeding violations, the highest recorded speed of an offending lorry was 132 kilometres per hour. TP does not track if vehicles involved in speeding violations were ferrying workers.”
“In determining penalties for offences, there is a need to consider deterrence and also that the penalties are proportionate with the nature of the offence. Where the legislation provides for a discretionary jail term, such as under the Massage Establishments Act, the Courts may decide whether to impose a jail term, depending on the facts. We do not see a need to remove this discretion from the Courts. Further, non-compliance with Safe Management rules is an offence under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act, punishable by penalties of up to $10,000, imprisonment of up to six months, or both. Repeat offenders may be punished with a fine of up to $20,000, or imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both. Since the start of the pandemic, there have been several cases where individuals who egregiously broke the rules, have been jailed.”
“In respect of sub para (a) of the Member’s question, the answer is no, the Singapore Police Force has not accessed contact tracing data for the purposes of investigations.”
“MHA and MCCY will be engaging community leaders and groups across all racial groups in preparation for the new Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act. We are working on the engagement plans and will share more details when ready. The Member asked how we would address the concerns of the communities without creating a litigious culture. Laws by themselves cannot make people get along with one another or like one another. However, they can help to lay out what our society considers right or wrong. The new Act will act as guardrails for our racial harmony. Besides criminalising acts that clearly seek to promote enmity between different racial groups and undermine our racial harmony, the Act will introduce softer, non-punitive measures that allow the offender a chance to mend relations or understand the offended party’s perspective better. This is important as there could be situations where it would be more helpful to focus on mediating and restoring relations rather than punishing the offender. The Member asked how we would ensure that only legitimate cases are investigated and prosecuted. As with all offences under the law, AGC will decide on whether a case should be prosecuted by making an assessment on the sufficiency of the evidence gathered by the law enforcement agencies and on whether it is in the public interest to do so. That said, Parliament decides on where to draw the line as to what actions should be considered criminal, through the laws that it passes. This new Act will give us an opportunity to review our laws on race and determine the appropriate threshold to set.”
“Since August 2021, selected groups of travellers to Singapore are required to show documentary proof of their full vaccination status to be eligible for vaccination-differentiated safe management measures. Singapore is currently in bilateral discussions with several countries and regions on establishing mechanisms for the authentication of digital vaccination certificates. For countries where such verification mechanisms are not yet in place, the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) would conduct manual checks on the physical certificates. To-date, there have been no cases of fake vaccination certificates detected at our borders. We have also not received any reports on detection of fake Singapore-issued vaccination certificates at foreign borders. A person who presents a fake vaccination certificate at our borders could be liable for an offence of providing false or misleading information or document under section 64(b) of the Infectious Diseases Act. If convicted, first-time offenders are liable to punishment of a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment term not exceeding six months, or both. A person who is found to have presented a fake Singapore-issued vaccination certificate at foreign borders would be dealt with under the laws of the countries where the offence was discovered. The person could also be investigated by the Singapore Police Force if there is evidence that an offence has been committed in Singapore.”
“The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) has been educating members of the public on emergency preparedness for the past decades. For example, how to react in situations of fire, flood, landslide, tremors, lightning (during thunderstorms), tsunami and so on. SCDF conducts training for members of the public and issues advisories that can be found in public educational materials, such as the Civil Defence Emergency Handbook and on SCDF’s website. SCDF’s Emergency Preparedness Centre also educates visitors, via interactive exhibits and video accounts, for example of Singaporean survivors of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, how to react during such emergencies. Climate change has resulted in drier and hotter weather in recent years, increasing the risks of wildfire and heatwave. The inter-agency Wildfire Task Force, which is led by SCDF and with members from agencies such as SLA, NEA, NParks and PUB, steps up preventive measures such as watering and trimming of overgrown vegetation at high-risk areas, ahead of dry weather, to minimise the occurrences of vegetation fire. The Government also periodically conducts contingency planning exercises involving multiple Government agencies, to review our planning assumptions and strengthen coordination in emergency plans.”
“An offence of sexual penetration under section 376A of the Penal Code is now punishable with up to 10 years of imprisonment and/or a fine if committed against a victim between the ages of 14 and 16. So, it is pretty serious, the penalties. However, if the victim is below the age of 14, the offence is punishable with up to 20 years of imprisonment instead and there is also a possibility of caning. The criterion of 14 years of age under section 354(2) is consistent with this approach.”
“Mr Raj Joshua Thomas also highlighted the overlaps between section 177 and the amended section 182 and asked if accused persons will be charged under section 182 instead of the less serious section 177. It is up to the prosecution to assess, exercising their prosecutorial discretion, as to which offence has been established, which charge should be preferred, depending on the facts of each case. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim suggested that persons who obstruct public servants in the discharge of their public functions under section 186 should face a jail term of up to two years, compared to the six months proposed in this Bill. He has said that obstruction could lead to grave consequences. I agree that it could lead to grave consequences, but, at present, having reviewed it, we do not see a need to increase the maximum sentence, based on the cases that have arisen. Some of the more egregious instances raised by the Member will likely be caught by more serious offences, such as section 353 on using criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his duty. The third area is the protection of minors from sexual offences. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked why aggravated penalties for outrage of modesty under section 354(2) only apply when the minor is under 14 years old. He suggested aggravated penalty should also apply when a minor is under 16, consistent with the offences of sexual grooming and exploitation. This question was considered by the Penal Code Review Committee (PCRC). They submitted their recommendations in 2018. Both sets of offences – whether the victim is below 16 or below 14 – are treated seriously.”
“It can be through the provision of false information but it can also be through other means and one can imagine easily very egregious circumstances – deliberate physical obstruction of public servants when they are doing something extremely important and urgent, for example, in the saving of lives. Quite apart from giving of false information, the crux of the offence under section 186, therefore, is, in some way, interfering or obstructing the performance of a public servant's duties. The new illustration being added will help to explain this. So, the illustration: a person plays a prank on, say, SCDF paramedics who are responding to an emergency and he gives false information to the paramedics with an intention of causing a delay in the paramedics' provision of medical assistance. Even though the person may not be legally bound to provide information, his act of giving false information, intentionally wasting SCDF's time and resources in the midst of an emergency, could lead to very serious, possibly even fatal consequences. So, the proposed amendments clarify that section 186 is not limited to physical acts of obstruction. They could also include the provision of false information, depending on the facts of each case. There is some overlap. I accept that. But the essence of the offences is distinct and primarily addresses different types of conduct. The proposed raising of the maximum imprisonment term for section 186 to six months is to align the penalties with that of section 177(1) so that they can potentially cover conduct of similar blameworthiness. The actual penalty imposed will, of course, depend on the facts.”
“The Court held that an offence under section 182 was not made out although Police took more time to investigate the identity of one of the persons of interest because the Police would have had to investigate this case anyway, regardless of the false information. We are amending section 182 in a very simple way to deal with this lacuna. Section 182 applies even when you give false information even though you are not under an obligation to do so. Section 177 applies when the person is under a legal obligation to give information. I note Ms Sylvia Lim's point on the marginal note. We did not amend the marginal note of the provision because the main thrust of the offence has not changed. The intent and the scope of the amendment, of course, is made clear through the wording of the provision, the illustration that has been added, the Explanatory Statement and the discussion in the House today. Let me now move to section 186. Ms Sylvia Lim highlighted the overlaps between sections 177 and 186, and sought clarification on the rationale for raising the maximum imprisonment term for section 186, even though providing false information to a public servant when one is under a legal duty to do so, which is section 177, is arguably more serious than when one is not under such a duty. On section 186, I think Ms Sylvia Lim is right if both cases involve giving of false information. Sections 177 and 186, however, can cover different types of criminal conduct. Section 177, as we have just seen earlier, applies when one is under a legal duty to give information to a public servant. The provision of the false information is the central element of the offence. In contrast, section 186 deals with obstruction of public servants in the discharge of their public functions.”
“The Court then imposed an additional imprisonment term of 12 months, on top of the initial imprisonment sentence. Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked for an update on the setting up of the Sentencing Advisory Panel with regard to the terms of reference and its composition. We will provide, on the formation of the Sentencing Advisory Panel, the terms of reference and its composition in due course, after the details are firmed up. Mr Louis Ng asked about the Sentencing Advisory Panel as well and whether it could review and publish guidelines on victim compensation under section 359 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). Compensation orders under the CPC are meant for cases where the fact and the extent of damage are either agreed or readily and easily ascertainable on the evidence. Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas sought clarification on the rationale for amending section 182. Ms Sylvia Lim made the point as to whether the amendment is necessary, considering that giving false information to a public servant is already dealt with by section 177. As Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas pointed out, section 177 applies if the person giving false information was legally bound to provide the information to a public servant. In Chua Wen Hao's case, again, as both Members of Parliament pointed out, the Court said that section 182 is not designed to protect a public servant from the inefficient exercise of lawful powers. Now, I should make clear that inefficient exercise in that case arose from false information being given. Because false information was given, the Police had to spend extra time running around, doing the investigations.”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Members who spoke in support of the Bill. I will deal with the questions and suggestions raised by Members in turn. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim suggested that we should raise the penalty for section 354(2). We had considered this and reviewed it. We felt that it was not necessary at this stage. The penalty is severe enough. It has got to take reference from other penalties across different sections. Mr Murali Pillai asked whether the age limit for caning remains fit for our purpose today. Again, our assessment is that there is no reason to raise the age limit. The number of men over the age of 50 arrested for serious offences that attract caning is significantly lower, compared to men under the age of 50. Where an offender is not eligible for caning, as Mr Murali Pillai and Members of this House will know, the Court can still impose an additional imprisonment term of up to 12 months, in lieu of caning, if it assesses that there is a need to do so. The Member raised the concern of offenders who are near the age of 50 delaying the proceedings to escape caning. Raising the age limit, by itself, may not stop the problem because, when you shift the line, the problem may also shift. But I accept that, in logical terms, by reference to life expectancy, Mr Murali Pillai's case is a cogent one. My response to him is that we have been quite cautious about extending the categories of people who are caned. A clarification. In the example cited by Mr Murali Pillai of the accused person who tried to delay proceedings, caning was not carried out in that case because the accused was found medically unfit for caning, not because he had crossed the age of 50.”
“First, the offence under section 376ED(3)(b) of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a minor between 14 and 16 years of age or causing a minor between 14 and 16 years of age to view a sexual image; Second, the offence under section 376EE(3), which prohibits the same conduct against a minor between 16 and 18 years of age where the offender is in an exploitative relationship with the minor. An exploitative relationship may be found, for example, between a parent or a step-parent, teacher, sports coach, musical instructor of the minor and so on. Currently, the maximum imprisonment term for these two offences is one year. We will increase that to two years. This will bring the punishment in line with similar offences involving sexual communications with minors. Apart from increasing the penalties for these three offences, the Bill also makes amendments to other sexual offences such as sexual assault involving penetration, procuring sexual activity by deception or false representation, sexual penetration of a corpse, offences relating to voyeurism and intimate images, and offences relating to child abuse material. These amendments will clarify the scope of the offences and finetune them further. Minister of State Desmond Tan will take the House through other amendments in his speech. Sir, in conclusion, the amendments will strengthen our laws against sexual offences, signal the importance of building a society that embodies the fundamental values of equality and respect. I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 1.21 pm”
“Previously, such offences would be dealt with under the rubric of insulting the modesty of a woman. The new offence of voyeurism doubled the maximum imprisonment term from one to two years and provided for the possibility of caning as well. In the Bill before the House today, we also deal with sexual offences, amongst other matters. As I stated in my Ministerial Statement in March, the maximum penalties are in our view properly calibrated for most of the offences. There are, however, three sexual offences for which we intend to increase the maximum punishments. First, on outrage of modesty (OM) under section 354(1) of the Penal Code. We have seen an increased in the number of OM cases from 2016 to 2020. We had an average of 1,190 cases reported each year. This was a 24% increase from the previous five-year period from 2011 to 2015. We have proposed to increase the maximum imprisonment term for OM under section 354(1) of the Penal Code from two years to three years. This will enhance deterrence and ensure that egregious cases are punished more severely. This maximum imprisonment term of three years is only for the primary offence of OM under section 354(1). There are other aggravated variants of the offence such as OM against minors under 14 or where hurt is caused to the victim in order to commit OM, which already attract higher penalties. Second, we will raise the penalties for sexual offences against minors for two sexual offences.”
“Thank you. Members can also access this information, this material through the Singapore Parliament Members of Parliament mobile app. In particular, we made several key changes to the Penal Code in 2019. I will highlight a few as relevant background for this Bill before I deal with this Bill. First, in 2019, we had provided for enhanced punishments of up to twice the maximum prescribed penalties for some offences committed against vulnerable victims and persons in intimate or close relationship with the offender. Second, to better protect minors under 16, we increased the penalties for the offences of rape, sexual assault involving penetration and sexual penetration of minors where the offender was in an exploitative relationship with the minor. Third, we extended protection to minors between 16 and 18 years of age. Sexual activity with this category of minors was criminalised where the relationship was exploitative. These minors above the age of 16 are slightly above the age of consent for sexual activity. They can consent but in reality, they are susceptible to exploitation by those who are in a relationship of trust with them. In such cases, the minor's consent is compromised and we dealt with that. Fourth, we introduced for the offence of procuring sexual activity by deception or false representation to deal with cases where the victim's consent was compromised due to the offender misleading them on the use of, for example, sexually protective measures or the absence of a sexually transmitted disease. This sought to protect victims from violations to their sexual autonomy and the serious risks that arise from that. Fifth, we specifically made voyeurism an offence to address technology-facilitated offences.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time. We last undertook an extensive review of the Penal Code in 2018 and 2019, and amendments were made in 2019. That included amendments to strengthen the protection for minors and other vulnerable victims; deal with new crime trends; better deal with sexual offences; expand and clarify the scope of certain offences and defences; and modernise the language of certain provisions. I will speak on some of the amendments relating to sexual offences. My colleague, Minister of State Desmond Tan, will take the House through the amendments in greater detail. As this House is aware, we have made significant changes in legislation over the years, to deal with sexual crimes and strengthen the protection for women, children and vulnerable persons. These are set out in the Annex to my speech. And Sir, with your permission, can I ask the Clerk to distribute the Annex to Members.”
“We should be careful not to draw premature conclusions from the tragic River Valley High School incident. It is best to wait for the investigations to be completed and then see if there are specific actions necessary on legislation. Any decision to lower the age limit for the death penalty is a very serious one and will require careful consideration. While we continually review our laws, we do not yet see any reason to lower the current age limit; nor do we anticipate that this will change.”
“As at 31 December 2020, there were 9,204 male inmates and 1,162 female inmates.1 Based on our records, 2,224 male inmates and 508 female inmates had at least one child under the age of 18; while 869 male inmates and 227 female inmates had at least one child under the age of seven.”
“Members of the public have filed more than 150,000 reports via i-Witness since its launch in April 2016. The Police will follow up on information received via i-Witness about criminal activity, including initiating investigations. The Police do not track the number of i-Witness reports which have aided ongoing investigations or led to action against unreported crimes. As the platform is intended for witnesses to quickly submit information to the Police, victims of crime are encouraged to lodge Police reports where they can provide more detailed information. For operational reasons, the Police are not able to communicate case outcomes to every person who puts up an i-Witness report. Police will provide case outcomes to persons directly related to the matter under investigation, such as the victims or accused persons.”
“There are currently over 400 nightlife establishments, for example, karaoke outlets and nightclubs, that have temporarily pivoted to food and beverage (F&B) businesses ("pivoted establishments"). They were required to suspend operations from 16 July 2021 to break community transmission from the cluster of COVID-19 cases involving these establishments. On 16 July, after the suspension was announced, Police were conducting regular enforcement operations and had erroneously advised nine F&B establishments to cease their operations. Unknown to the officers at that point in time, these establishments were not considered pivoted establishments as they had permanently changed their land use. Upon realising the error, Police immediately notified the operators and apologised. Due to the urgency to break community transmission, agencies involved in the administration and enforcement of the pivot scheme had to move quickly to suspend the operations of all pivoted establishments at short notice. This resulted in some miscoordination. Agencies have since tightened coordination to prevent future occurrences.”
“Karaoke singing is a high COVID-risk activity because of the singing, the enclosed setting and the potential for droplet transmission. We understand and emphathise with the situation of family-oriented karaoke operators. MHA, together with the other agencies, is looking into the request by karaoke operators that brand themselves as being more family-oriented and, therefore, less likely to engage in illegal activities, and to be regulated separately from other nightlife establishments during this pandemic. The concern is that the risks associated with singing remain, regardless of whether the karaoke operators are family-oriented or otherwise. This needs to be assessed. It will be helpful if the Member can clarify if he supports the issuing of separate licences to karaoke operators who state that they are family karaoke operators (distinct from other nightlife-oriented operators) and to relax restrictions on karaokes that brand themselves as family-oriented operators.”
“The Commissioner of Prisons will review each case involving an aggravated offence and then can confirm the punishments imposed or vary any of them. After the corporal punishment is confirmed, a medical officer will ensure the inmate is in a fit state of health to go through the punishment both prior to and during the execution of the punishment. If, during the execution of the punishment, the medical officer certifies that the inmate is not in a fit state of health, the punishment will be stopped. From the period of 2011 to 2020, SPS administered 2,875 instances of institutional caning to 2,149 inmates (that is, some inmates were found guilty of multiple aggravated or major offences). The number of strokes meted out in each case depends on a myriad of factors that are specific to the case. The median number of strokes imposed between 2011 and 2020 inclusive was three, across a variety of aggravated or major offences. The most common offences for which caning was imposed involved aggravated violence against other inmates and violence against staff. The Prisons Act also provides that where a prisoner is accused of any aggravated prison offence and the Superintendent is of the opinion that, in the circumstances of the case, the power of punishment which the Superintendent possesses is inadequate, the Superintendent may report the matter to the Visiting Justice or Justices. The Visiting Justice or Justices, after investigating the charge, may punish the prisoner found guilty of the offence after due inquiry by imposing a higher corporal punishment. SPS did not make any such referral to Visiting Justices from 2011 to 2020.”
“The Prisons Act provides for caning as one of the punishments for committing aggravated prison offences that have serious implications for institutional order and discipline. Examples of such offences include taking part in any assault or attack of any officer and aggravated or repeated assault of any other inmate. There is a framework to ensure that punishments are imposed fairly and appropriately. Upon the receipt of a report that an inmate has committed an offence, Singapore Prison Service’s (SPS) Provost Officers will investigate the case, which includes taking statements from the complainants, witnesses and the accused, as well as reviewing all evidence relevant to the case. Thereafter, as part of the adjudication process, every inmate suspected of having committed an offence will be informed of the charge and evidence against him, and given the opportunity to provide his defence. The adjudicating Superintendent will consider all the facts of the case, including the inmate’s defence and mitigation, before deciding if the inmate is guilty, and if so, the punishments to be imposed. Every case where an inmate is given corporal punishment by the adjudicating Superintendent will be referred to an Institutional Discipline Advisory Committee. This Committee is an independent body appointed by the Minister for Home Affairs comprising reputable members of the public, including at least a member who is legally trained. The facts of the case will be put before the Committee, which will then advise the Commissioner of Prisons as to whether the corporal punishment to be imposed on an inmate for the aggravated or major offence is, in the Committee’s view, excessive.”
“Without you, without the quiet civil servant who gets the things done, all the young executives who can wine and dine in Shangri-La, they will be down the drain.” As SPF writes its next chapter, I am confident that SPF will continue to uphold its tradition of excellence and stay anchored on its core values: courage, loyalty, integrity, fairness, even as it charts its way through a more complex operating environment. In doing so, SPF must continue to hold its officers to the highest standards of integrity and professionalism, in order to maintain the trust of Singaporeans whom it serves. I ask all Members to join me in congratulating and thanking SPF for its 200 years of exemplary service in keeping Singapore safe and secure. And long may this continue for many generations to come. Thank you. [Applause.]”